AN EXAMINATION OF THE SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS AND BELIEFS OF DELINQUENT AND NON-DELINQUENT YOUTH Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this dissertation is my own or was done in the collaboration with my advisory committee. This dissertation does not include proprietary or classified information. __________________________________ Shakela Carion Johnson Certificate of Approval: _______________________ __________________________ Cynthia J. Reed William A. Spencer, Chair Associate Professor Professor Educational Foundations, Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology Leadership, and Technology ________________________ __________________________ Ellen H. Reames Maria Martinez Witte Educational Foundations, Associate Professor Leadership, and Technology Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology _________________________ George T. Flowers Interim Dean Graduate School AN EXAMINATION OF THE SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS AND BELIEFS OF DELINQUENT AND NON-DELINQUENT YOUTH Shakela Carion Johnson A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education Auburn, Alabama May 10, 2007 iii AN EXAMINATION OF THE SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS AND BELIEFS OF DELINQUENT AND NON-DELINQUENT YOUTH Shakela Carion Johnson Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this dissertation at its discretion, upon request of individuals or institutions and at their expense. The author reserves all publication rights. _____________________________ Signature of Author _____________________________ Date of Graduation iv VITA Shakela Carion Johnson, born October 7, 1977 is the daughter of Jeannette Brooks Johnson and John Benjamin Johnson. Shakela earned a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Alabama in May 1999, and began her professional career as a special education teacher at Millbrook Jr. High School that fall. In 2001, she earned a Master of Education from Auburn University Montgomery in School Counseling. The following year, Shakela earned certification in educational administration, and enrolled in the doctoral program for educational leadership at Auburn University. While pursuing a doctorate at Auburn University, she completed requirements for an Education Specialist degree. Shakela taught at Millbrook Middle/Jr. High School for five years, before becoming an assistant principal at Opelika High School in 2004 and is currently employed in this position. Shakela is married to Vincent Ford. v DISSERTATION ABSTRACT AN EXAMINATION OF THE SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS AND BELIEFS OF DELINQUENT AND NON-DELINQUENT YOUTH Shakela Carion Johnson Doctor of Education, May 10, 2007 (Ed.S., Auburn University, 2004) (M.Ed. Auburn University Montgomery, 2001) (B.S., University of Alabama, 1999) 156 typed pages Directed by William Spencer Within the last year, over 3,000 youth have been admitted into the juvenile justice system in the state of Alabama with one-third of those youth participating in a High Intensive Treatment (HIT) program. Most delinquents are school-aged youth who have not completed educational requirements. They withdraw from school to attend the HIT program, and upon their return to school are expected to comply with the same rules and regulations as non-delinquent youth. A key to the success of a delinquent youth is to refrain from committing future delinquent acts, thereby reducing recidivism. Based on Travis Hirschi?s (1969) social bond theory, youth with weak ties to family, school and community are more likely to persist in delinquent behavior. vi Understanding adjudicated youth and comparing this knowledge with the general youth population will aid in program evaluation and possibly predict those youth who are at risk for recidivism (Austin, Johnson & Weitzer, 2005). The purpose of this study was to determine the social characteristics of delinquent and non-delinquent youth. Using the elements of Hirschi?s social bond theory?attachment, beliefs, involvement and commitment, the researcher developed the Youth Self-Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs. The questionnaire was administered to 195 participants of which 117 were non-delinquent students and 78 were delinquent students. Overall, the data observed indicated a statistically significant difference between delinquent and non-delinquent youth. Additionally, qualitative measures were used to ascertain delinquent youths? perceptions about the High Intensive Treatment program. The delinquent youth indicated that the goals of the HIT program were challenging, but achievable. Most delinquent youth revealed that they intended to make positive changes upon completion of the HIT program. Refraining from delinquency, pursuing educational goals and obtaining gainful employment were the adjustments most delinquent youth seemed determined to make. vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my parents, Jeannette Brooks Johnson and John Benjamin Johnson. It is amazing that the principles you taught me years ago are still pertinent at this very moment?throughout this entire process. That in the pursuit of excellence, Daddy, you must never stop asking questions and Mother that you have to persevere even through difficult and demanding times. Professionally, I owe a great deal of gratitude to my mentors: Mary Bonikowski, H. Earl Williamson, Robin Davis and Jason Bryant. Each of you represent an aspect of my career, and you have made a lasting impression on my life. I hope that I give in return that which you have given to me. I would like to thank Dr. John Stewart, Superintendent of the Alabama Department of Youth Services, who made this dissertation topic possible. Thank you for being the first comforting voice. I could never express how appreciative I am for your help with this study. To my committee members, thank you for your guidance and contributions. A great deal of thanks also goes to Dr. Kemba C. Countryman, my peer adviser, for constant motivation and encouragement. Thanks for leading the way! Lastly, to Dewayne and the students like him, who inspired this topic, it is my prayer that educators will continue to strive and ultimately be successful in helping you overcome the challenges you face. viii Style manual or journal used: Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 5 th Edition. Computer software used: SPSS 10, Windows XP, and Microsoft Word 2003 ix TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................... ix LIST OF FIGURES. .................................................................................................. xiii I. INTRODUCTION. ........................................................................................ 1 Background of the Study ............................................................................... 2 Purpose of the Study ...................................................................................... 5 Research Questions........................................................................................ 5 Significance of the Study .............................................................................. 6 Theoretical Framework.................................................................................. 6 Definition of Terms........................................................................................ 9 Limitations and Assumptions ........................................................................ 12 Overview of the Study ................................................................................... 13 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE. ....................................................................... 14 Introduction...........................................................................?????..... 14 Purpose of the Study. ................................................?????..... 15 Research Questions...................................................?????..... 15 Social Characteristics of Delinquent Youth................................................... 16 Risk Factors ....................................................................................... 16 Social Influences................................................................................ 18 Travis Hirshi?s Social Bond Theory .................................................. 19 Beliefs. ............................................................................................... 20 Attachment......................................................................................... 21 Involvement ....................................................................................... 27 Commitment ...................................................................................... 27 The Juvenile Justice System. ......................................................................... 28 Juvenile Courts................................................................................... 28 The Path of Juvenile Justice............................................................... 30 Adjudicated Youth............................................................................. 34 Probation............................................................................................ 34 Custodial Setting................................................................................ 36 High Intensive Treatment Program.................................................... 36 The Impact of Juvenile Justice Programs .......................................... 38 x Aftercare ............................................................................................ 42 The Reentry Process ......................................................................... 45 Barriers to Reentry ............................................................................ 50 Chapter Summary .......................................................................................... 54 III. METHODS. ................................................................................................... 55 Introduction.................................................................................................... 55 Design of the Study........................................................................................ 57 Instrument Development................................................................................ 57 Participant Population.................................................................................... 58 Public School ................................................................................................. 59 Department of Youth Services....................................................................... 59 Instrumentation .............................................................................................. 61 Reliability....................................................................................................... 62 Research Procedures and Data Collection ..................................................... 64 Data Analysis................................................................................................. 65 Chapter Summary .......................................................................................... 66 IV. FINDINGS..................................................................................................... 67 Introduction.................................................................................................... 67 Quantitative Findings..................................................................................... 68 Qualitative Findings....................................................................................... 99 Chapter Summary .......................................................................................... 102 V. CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. ...................................... 103 Discussion of Findings................................................................................... 105 Implications.................................................................................................... 106 Recommendations for Further Research........................................................ 107 Chapter Summary .......................................................................................... 109 REFERENCES. ......................................................................................................... 111 APPENDICES. .......................................................................................................... 121 Appendix A: Institution Permission Letters ................................................. 122 Appendix B: Information Letters.................................................................. 125 Appendix C: Institutional Review Board. .................................................... 128 Appendix D: Administrators? Scripts. .......................................................... 130 Appendix E: Instrument for Non-Delinquent Youth.................................... 135 Appendix F: Instrument for Delinquent Youth............................................ 139 xi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Age of Non-Delinquent Participants.............................................................. 69 2. Beliefs of Non-Delinquent Students .............................................................. 70 3. Commitment of Non-Delinquent Students Chapter Summary ...................... 71 4. Involvement of Non-Delinquent Student....................................................... 72 5. Attachment of Non-Delinquent Students....................................................... 72 6. Ages of Delinquent Participants .................................................................... 74 7. Length for Stay of Delinquent Students......................................................... 75 8. Beliefs of Delinquent Students ...................................................................... 76 9. Commitment of Delinquent Students............................................................. 77 10. Involvement of Delinquent Students ............................................................. 78 11. Attachment of Delinquent Students............................................................... 79 12. Beliefs of African-American Delinquents and African-American Non- Delinquents .................................................................................................... 83 13. Commitment of African-American Delinquents and African-American Non- Delinquents .................................................................................................... 84 14. Involvement of African-American Delinquents and African-American Non- Delinquents .................................................................................................... 85 15. Attachment of African-American Delinquents and African-American Non- Delinquents .................................................................................................... 86 16. Beliefs of Delinquent Males and Non-delinquent Males .............................. 88 xii 17. Commitment Delinquent Males and Non-delinquent Males ......................... 89 18. Involvement of Delinquent Males and Non-delinquent Males ..................... 90 19. Attachment of Delinquent Males and Non-delinquent Males ....................... 91 20. Beliefs of African-American Delinquent Males and African-American Non- Delinquent Males........................................................................................... 94 21. Commitment of African-American Delinquent Males and African-American Non-Delinquent Males................................................................................... 95 22. Involvement of African-American Delinquent Males and African-American Non-Delinquent Males................................................................................... 96 23. Attachment of African-American Delinquent Males and African-American Non-Delinquent Males................................................................................... 97 xiii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Juvenile Justice System Structure and Process............................................. 30 2. Reasons for Adjudication............................................................................... 75 1 CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION From ancient times to the early Christian era, children were under the absolute authority of the family, and the head of the household, usually the father, was expected to deal with children who were disobedient and unruly (Ferro, 2003). Historically, informal mechanisms such as the family, church and community were used to control behavior problems. Times have changed and the responsibility of managing the conduct of youth has shifted. With behavior problems beyond parental control, parents have been forced to seek help from external sources. Misbehavior traditionally handled by families in past years, today often results in complaints and petitions to the juvenile courts (Yablonsky, 2000). Juvenile courts intervene when institutions such as families and social service agencies fail to remedy problem behavior of children at risk for delinquency (Loeber, Farrington & Petechuk, 2003). As a result, the juvenile court has become a ?dumping ground? for children with problem behaviors (Loeber, Farrington & Petechuk, 2003, p. 11). A rise in youth delinquency and the number of frustrated parents seeking help for their troubled children has had a huge impact on the juvenile justice system (Jensen & Howard, 1998). Over the last ten years, there has been an increase of more than 100 percent in the total number of youth served by the Alabama Department of Youth Services (Alabama Department of Youth Services). In 2006, over 3,000 adolescents, ages 11-19, were admitted into the juvenile justice system in the state of Alabama. The 2 reasons for the delinquent juvenile cases include child in need of supervision (CHINS), drugs, person offenses (assault, homicide, rape or robbery), property offenses (vandalism, burglary, theft or arson) and public order offenses (disorderly conduct, obstruction of justice, weapons or liquor violations). Youth committing person or violent offenses made up only 14% of the youth served by the Alabama Department of Youth Services. Majority of the delinquent cases comprised youth who were committed to a custodial facility for non-violent offenses. Even more, most of these youth were admitted due to a violation of court-ordered probation or CHINS? order. The categories and occurrence of offenses draw attention to the rebellious, but rehabilitative nature of this population of youth. Background of the Study Of the approximately 3,000 youth admitted into the juvenile justice system, one- third were admitted into High Intensive Treatment (HIT) facilities, often known as boot camps. Juveniles who are admitted to a boot camp, such as the High Intensive Treatment program, are confined only for a short period of time, for a minimum of 28 days and a maximum of 90 days depending on the program?s goals and services available at a specific facility. Treatment objectives for participants include improving students? self- esteem, academic skills, character traits and respect for authority. Nearly all youth who are adjudicated continue to be educated by the public school system, either while on probation or after short-term placements in secure facilities (Balfanz, Spiridakis, Neild & Legters, 2003). Once an adolescent is adjudicated their life becomes two-fold. They withdraw from school, attend boot camp, and return to the 3 public school setting often within the same academic school year. Upon their return to school, delinquent youth are expected to comply with the same rules and regulations as non-delinquent youth. However, there are concerns about whether juvenile boot camps are an appropriate way to manage and treat juvenile delinquents and what impact boot camps have on the adjustment and behavior of juveniles while they are confined and upon release (Flash, 2003; MacKenzie, Gover, Armstrong & Mitchell, 2001; Tyler, Darville & Stalnaker, 2001). One of the major goals for youth exiting custodial facilities is to reduce the likelihood of recidivism as recidivism rates generally serve as the critical measure for evaluating the effectiveness of correctional programs (Baltodano, Platt & Roberts, 2005; MacKenzie, Styve & Gover, 2004). Unfortunately, the recidivism rate among juveniles following release from residential placement remains high (Reconnecting, n.d.). According to Black (2005), the national re-offense rate for juvenile offenders is 60%. However, in the state of Alabama, 70% of the youth released from detention facilities were referred back to juvenile court within two and a half years (Linn, 2005). More than 50 % of these youth were back in state custody, having contact with the juvenile court system two or three more times (Linn, 2005). Instead of focusing on why the recidivism rate is so high, Tyler, Darville and Stalnaker (2001) recommend researching why boot camps are successful for those juveniles who are rehabilitated: With the proliferation of juvenile boot camp programs, and tremendous influx of tax dollars toward this purpose, juvenile correctional officers need to examine what?s working and what?s not working in boot camps and determine not only if 4 juvenile boot camps are worth the outlay of money and the commitment of human resources, but how to make the programs uniformly effective. To do that, one needs to look at various demographic variables of young people who attend these programs as well as characteristics of boot camps themselves, and analyze which variables predict the greatest chance of success. (p. 447) In a study by Todis, Bullis, Waintrup, Schultz and D?Ambrosio (2001), it was suggested that formerly incarcerated adolescents experienced negative community adjustment encounters when they went back to their regular living environment. Todis, et. al. (2001) indicated that not all adolescents who have been incarcerated were unsuccessful in their transition back to their normal living environment and not every offender returning to the community is at high risk for re-offending. Yet, the differences between those who were and were not successful are unclear. Since juvenile boot camps are recent additions to the correctional system, data on juvenile boot camps is scarce and poorly defined (Tyler, Darville & Stalnaker, 2001). A comprehensive risk and needs assessment should be used to determine areas in which youth need direction and guidance (Reconnecting, n.d.). ?In order to best serve youth and their communities, it is essential to examine many strategies and to understand what actually works in treating youth who have been ruled delinquent? (Flash, 2003, p. 510). It may be possible to identify potential recidivists through personality and character traits: Delinquents who score low on factors such as capacity for attachment and impulse control may be more likely to commit future offenses than those who score higher (Hinmon, 2000). 5 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this research was to determine the social characteristics and beliefs of delinquent and non-delinquent youth. The delinquent culture has values that are opposed to the general culture (Cavan & Ferdinand, 1975). By understanding the attributes of the confined youth population and combining this knowledge with accurate population projections, juvenile correctional agencies can better evaluate their program needs and structure facilities and programs to meet the needs of confined youth (Austin, Johnson & Weitzer, 2005). Research Questions The study investigated the following research questions: ? What are the social characteristics and beliefs of delinquent youth as measured by the Youth Self-Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs? ? What are the social characteristics and beliefs of non-delinquent youth as measured by the Youth Self-Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs? ? Is there a statistically significant difference in the social characteristics and beliefs of delinquents and non-delinquents as measured by the Youth Self-Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs? ? Is there a statistically significant difference between delinquent and non- delinquent youth based on race or gender as measured by the Youth Self- Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs? ? What is the perceived impact of a High Intensive Treatment Program on its participants? 6 Significance of the Study ?There is perhaps no group as misunderstood and as underserved as adolescents who exhibit extreme antisocial behaviors and who are incarcerated for those actions? (Todis, Bullis, Waintrup, Schultz & D?Ambrosio, 2001, p. 119). In order to strengthen intervention efforts for adolescents who are incarcerated, an understanding of the resilience of an adjudicated youth is important for service delivery implications (Todis, et. al., 2001). Assessing whether or not adjudicated youth can reintegrate successfully into the regular school environment will help determine the needs and the continuation of services that should be offered upon the completion of a treatment program. Accommodating and understanding adjudicated juveniles? social characteristics and beliefs may improve the process of delinquent youth reentering and remaining in the public school setting. Juveniles who are struggling to make the transition from the juvenile justice system to school completion should not be neglected, and helping them to successfully reconnect with the education mainstream is essential (Stephens & Arnette, 2000). Considering the social contexts that an adolescent is likely to experience is useful in assessing risk and the constellation of traits or personal characteristics helps in identifying the risk of future offending (DeMatteo & Marczyk, 2006). Theoretical Framework According to Hirschi and Gottfredson (2003), crime is controlled in four ways? legally, naturally, socially and supernaturally. There are numerous theories that pinpoint the origin of juvenile delinquency; however, social control theory may provide the most accurate depiction of factors influencing juvenile delinquency (DeLisi, 2003). 7 Social control theory declares that juveniles commit delinquent acts because some controlling force is absent or defective, and adolescents must be controlled somehow in order to repress delinquent tendencies (Shoemaker, 2005). Social controls are limitations placed on an individual through a communal system (Baker, 1991). Delinquency is best categorized as a social issue because the acts that characterize delinquency are based on conventions established by people in society, just as the safeguarding of those principles are carried out by the people in society. Reiss (1951) defined social control as the ability of institutions to make rules effective. Cavan and Ferdinand (1975) defined delinquency as the behavior which the people of a state and their leaders consider to be a threat to public safety or a hindrance to the best development of the child, and whose prohibition is incorporated into law. ?Delinquency may be defined as the behavior consequent to the failure of personal and social controls to produce behavior in conformity with the norms of the social system to which legal penalties are attached? (Reiss, 1951, p. 196). ?Delinquent acts frequently represent relatively exciting activities or the most expedient route to engage in these acts if we were not restrained from doing so by our social ties to others? (Gibbons, 1976, p. 93). Social control theory is based on the notion that humans are inherently bad, and it seeks to answer the question why people do not engage in crime (Britt & Gottfredson, 2003). Personal control, modified by social and educational experiences, is the ability of an individual to exercise self-restraint when faced with delinquent impulses and to refrain from meeting needs that conflict with the standards of the community (Armstrong & MacKenzie, 2003; Baker 1991; Reiss, 1951). Most people have strong needs and desires that may be easily satisfied through 8 delinquent acts (Agnew, 2003). What determines the variation in the levels of delinquency is not motivation, but the restraint against acting on delinquent motives (Agnew, 2003). According to Britt and Gottfredson (2003), ?modern control defines crimes as the use of force or fraud in the pursuit of short-term benefits without consideration of long- term negative consequences? (p. 2). The impulsive or short-sighted person fails to consider the negative or painful consequences of his actions (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). The pleasures of crime are equally distributed over the population, but the pains are not (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Many crimes do not produce the results intended by those committing them, according to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990). Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) add that the major benefit of many crimes is not pleasure, but relief from momentary irritation. Fundamental to addressing crime is to acknowledge the appeal crime has with delinquent youth: Given the natural ability of individuals to see the immediate advantages of crime, society should not be overly concerned with protecting them from exposure to such information. Put another way: The benefits of speeding, theft, assault and drugs are obvious. Efforts to control them by denying or distorting their benefits are unlikely to be effective. (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 2003, p. 151) Hirschi and Gottfredson (2003) pose the question, How can society efficiently and effectively monitor the behavior of potential offenders and convince them that crime is something to be avoided? ?Although it is understood that not all juvenile crime can be prevented, it is clear that promoting the development of troubled young people into responsible citizens is in 9 society?s best interests? (Stephens & Arnette, 2000, p. 3). For that reason, the most important group related to delinquency is the community (Barlow & Ferdinand, 1992). ?The community establishes structure within which, its members found their families, form their friendship groups, and develop their careers? (Barlow & Ferdinand, 1992, p. 149). It is essential that entities representing our larger community in society are resourceful in managing problem behaviors exhibited by youth. Sherman, Gottfredson, MacKenzie, Eck, Reuter and Bushway (1997) believe the community serves as the cornerstone for revitalizing delinquent youth and their families: Communities are the central institution for crime prevention, the stage on which all other institutions perform. Families, schools, labor markets, retail establishments, police and corrections officers must confront consequences of community life. Much of the success or failure of these other institutions is affected by the community context in which they operate. Our nation?s ability to prevent serious violent crime may depend heavily on our ability to reshape community life, at least in our most troubled communities. Our good fortune is that the number of those troubled communities is relatively small. Our challenge is that their problems are so profound. (p. 3-1) Definition of Terms Adjudicate: is the legal process of finding allegations against a child to be true. Adjudicated youth: is a child who has been found delinquent by the court, and is under the supervision of the juvenile court and its officials. 10 Aftercare: is the period after a juvenile is released from confinement or incarceration, and is the final component of a youth?s sentence (Gordon, 2003). Child in need of supervision (CHINS): is defined by the state of Alabama as an individual, under the age of 18 who violates the compulsory school attendance policy; disobeys reasonable demands of his/her parents/guardian or other custodian and is beyond their control; has committed an offense as defined by the law, but is not classified as criminal and only applies to children; is in need of care or rehabilitation (Alabama Juvenile Justice Act) Criminogenic factors: are circumstances of an offender which contribute to offending behavior and are used to determine the risk of recidivism (Reconnecting, n.d.) Delinquent act: is an act committed by a child that is a violation of a state or municipal ordinance, misdemeanor or felony. The term does not include youth who are transferred to criminal court. Delinquent youth: is a youth who has been formerly adjudicated by a juvenile court. Department of Youth Services: is the state agency charged with the supervision of delinquent youth (Cowin, Parks, Williamson, Anderton, Mitchell & Pope, 2005). Detention Center: The temporary confinement of juveniles who are accused of illegal conduct and are in need of a restricted environment while legal actions is pending (Reconnecting, n.d.) Disposition: is the action taken by a juvenile court in response to a child who is found delinquent or in violation of a court order. 11 Diversion: is a formal and organized effort to use alternatives to the traditional processing of offenders in the juvenile justice system (Davis, 2003). Diversion is most often used with status, misdemeanor and first-time offenses. Graduated Sanctions: A planned continuum of responses to delinquent behavior to which there are four levels?immediate, intermediate, secure care and reentry (Reconnecting, n.d.) High Intensive Treatment (HIT): is a modified boot camp program that serves as an intermediate sanction to deter juveniles from future acts of delinquency. Juvenile Court: is a court that has a special jurisdiction over delinquent, dependent or neglected children (Cowin, Parks, Williamson, Anderton, Mitchell & Pope, 2005). Level IV: is the highest level that youth participating in the HIT program can obtain. Each level represents the number of weeks a student has participated in the program or standard he/she has accomplished. Since the HIT program is a rehabilitative program, each level corresponds with attainment of weekly goals. A student who does not obtain his/her weekly goals does must repeat the level, thereby extending his/her time in the program by one week. Non-delinquent: is a juvenile who has not been adjudicated by the courts. Petition: is a legal document against a child alleging that he/she has committed a delinquent act. A petition is the equivalent of a warrant for an adult. Probation: is the legal status created by a court order following an adjudication of delinquency whereby a child is permitted to remain in the community, but is subject to supervision and return to court for violation of probation. 12 Probation officer: A probation officer is a liaison between the juvenile court and a juvenile who has been adjudicated. The probation officer should perform the following duties: make investigations, reports and recommendations to the court; supervise and assist a child placed on probation; make appropriate referrals to other private or public agencies; make predisposition studies (Alabama Juvenile Justice Act). A probation officer or representative of the Department of Human Resources has the power to take a child who is under his or her supervision into custody and place the child in detention care if he/she believes that the child has violated conditions of probation. Recidivism: is the act of committing a new violation, being incarcerated or attending an additional court referral after the initial offense (Dolny, 2003). Recidivism can also occur when a juvenile probationer fails to meet the requirements of his/her probation, such as failing a drug test or not attending school. Status offenses: are violations of the law that can only be committed by individuals under the age of 18. Status offenses include truancy from school and underage drinking. Violation: is a breach of a state or municipal ordinance (Cowin, Parks, Williamson, Anderton, Mitchell & Pope, 2005). Limitations The study was limited in the following areas: 1. The study was restricted to youth participating in a High Intensive Treatment program in one facility operated by the Alabama Department of Youth Services, Autagua County, which only serves male juveniles. 13 2. The study was restricted to one school community within a particular school district in the state of Alabama. 3. The study was limited by the information gained from the Youth Self-Assessment of Characteristics and Beliefs, which was authored by the researcher. Assumptions The following assumptions were made when conducting this research study: 1. The public school students participating in this study are representative of public school students in the state of Alabama. 2. Upon completion of the HIT program, a majority of the adjudicated youth will reenter the public school system, and more specifically, return to the same school or school district from which they came. 3. Participants were honest and sincere in their responses. Overview of the Study Chapter I includes the introduction, background of the study, research questions and definitions. Chapter II of this study provides a review of literature pertaining to the characteristics and predictors of delinquency and the processes of the juvenile justice system. Chapter III describes the methods, including the design of the study, instrument, and overview of the population and procedures. Chapter IV reveals the research finding. Chapter V presents the summary, conclusions and recommendations of this study. 14 CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction The identification, monitoring and management of behaviors contributing to delinquency is an extremely complicated process. In order to address the issue of delinquency, an awareness of the characteristics of delinquency, its potential influences and deterrence factors is needed. Gaining knowledge of youthful behaviors in school, in the community, and at home may help schools, families and community agencies understand patterns of delinquent behavior and aid in developing interventions (Sprague, Walker, Stieber, Simonsen, Nishioka, & Wagner, 2001). Ultimately, the control of delinquency depends on society?s ability to rehabilitate adjudicated youth, to treat pre- delinquents, and to reform the communities (Cavan & Ferdinand, 1975). The literature reviewed in this chapter focuses on three aspects of delinquency: the predictors and risk factors of delinquency, the underlying affects influencing delinquent behavior, and the legal ramifications associated with it. Intervention efforts that successfully reduce delinquent behavior are fostered by the ability to first recognize factors contributing to delinquency. An overview of delinquency is presented, and the theme of delinquency as the product of social interactions is developed throughout this chapter. This chapter concludes with an overview of the juvenile justice system. 15 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this research was to determine the social characteristics and beliefs of delinquent and non-delinquent youth. The delinquent culture has values that are opposed to the general culture (Cavan & Ferdinand, 1975). By understanding the attributes of the confined youth population and combining this knowledge with accurate population projections, juvenile correctional agencies can better evaluate their program needs and structure facilities and programs to meet the needs of confined youth (Austin, Johnson & Weitzer, 2005). Research Questions The study investigated the following research questions: ? What are the social characteristics and beliefs of delinquent youth as measured by the Youth Self-Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs? ? What are the social characteristics and beliefs of non-delinquent youth as measured by the Youth Self-Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs? ? Is there a statistically significant difference in the social characteristics and beliefs of delinquents and non-delinquents as measured by the Youth Self-Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs? ? Is there a statistically significant difference between delinquent and non- delinquent youth based on race or gender as measured by the Youth Self- Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs? ? What is the perceived impact of a High Intensive Treatment program on its participants? 16 Social Characteristics of Delinquent Youth Risk Factors Britt and Gottfredson (2003) report that important indicators of crime are often identified 10 to 15 years before the police and the courts become involved. For this reason, political authorities, parents, and educational leaders have less of a meaningful impact on delinquency, since young offenders display behavior problems prior to their entry into the juvenile justice system (Britt & Gottfredson, 2003; Loeber & Farrington, 2001). Programs and policies implemented in response to delinquent behavior focus on giving treatment or punishment and do not target or address the fundamental risk factors associated with juvenile crime (Jenson & Howard, 1998). Recognizing factors that may contribute to juvenile offending is the optimal approach in order to reduce the occurrence of delinquent behavior through early intervention efforts. Risk factors are aspects of a person?s life that may arise from within the individual, their family, friends, school, or community environments and increase the likelihood of an individual engaging in delinquent behavior (Wright, 2007). Although there is no single path to delinquency, risk factors increase the probability of offending, but not the certainty (Shader, 2003). Krisberg (2005) identified family management problems, early and persistent antisocial behavior and academic failure as powerful risk factors for most delinquent behavior. Children who are at risk for becoming delinquents often engage in a variety of problem behaviors, such as noncompliance with adults, temper tantrums, truancy and authority avoidance (Loeber & Farrington, 2001; Thornberry, Huizinga and Loeber, 2004). As a child matures, he or she child must develop ways of responding to his or her 17 environment. Each child differs in the capacity and willingness to make a positive accommodation (Emler & Reicher, 1995). It is the response to those demands that reveal socially acceptable or unacceptable behavior, which many researchers refer to as antisocial or prosocial behavior. Antisocial, aggressive behavior is a risk factor for delinquency (Caeti & Fritsch, 2003). Prosocial behaviors are positive actions prompted by empathy, moral values and a sense of personal responsibility (Kidron & Fleischman, 2006). While prosocial behavior includes helping, sharing, and cooperating, antisocial behavior includes forms of oppositional and aggressive behaviors (Tremblay & LeMarquand, 2001). The development of empathy, guilty feelings, social cognition and moral reasoning are important emotional and cognitive correlates of social development and may inhibit the expression of antisocial behavior (DeLisi, 2003). Nearly all youth engage in delinquent behavior at some point during their adolescence; however, it is persistent, defiant and maladaptive behaviors and minor forms of criminal behavior that encompass the legal definition of delinquency (Angenent & de Man, 1996; Gibbons, 1976). Engaging in persistent disruptive behavior and delinquency often is associated with poor social skills, which leads to disturbances in social relationships initially with relatives, peers and teachers and later with employers and co-workers (Loeber & Farrington, 2001). Although very few crimes committed by youth perpetrate serious violent acts, many display major long-term adjustment problems such as involvement in less serious crimes and drug and alcohol abuse (Sprague, Walker, Stieber, Simonsen & Nishioka, 2001). Assessing risk factors of delinquent behavior is important in predicting future behavior. 18 Many risk factors of juvenile delinquency that exist with the child, his/her peers, and at school can be traced back to problems within the family (Redding, Sevin Goldstein, & Heilbrun, 2005). Overall, the interaction of individual, family, school and peer risk and protective factors contribute to a juvenile?s overall level of risk (DeMatteo & Marczyk, 2006). Social Influences Delinquency results when there is an absence of internalized norms and rules governing behavior in conformity with the customs of our social system to which legal sanctions are attached, a breakdown in previously established controls and an absence of or conflict in techniques for enforcing such behavior in the social groups or institutions of which that person is a member (Reiss, 1951). According to Emler and Reicher (1995), delinquent acts are expressions that an individual is not willing to accept claims of authority thereby breaching relations with others, institutional order, and its demands. ?Hence delinquency may be seen as a functional consequence of the type of relationship established among the personal and social controls? (Reiss, 1951, p. 196). ?Behavior is not so much determined by the fear of being arrested or by human nature or a thick propensity to commit crime. Instead, it is heavily determined by their relationship with authority and institutions? (Harcourt, 2006, p. 207). Harcourt concluded delinquency is not the result of inherent differences among individuals, but rather a difference in the perceptions of the legitimacy of authority that are formed by the disparate treatment individuals receive from authority. 19 Travis Hirschi?s Social Bond Theory In examining delinquency as the product of social interactions among individuals, it is important to note the findings of Travis Hirschi. In 1969, Hirschi contended that delinquent acts occur when an individual?s bond to society is weak or broken. Hirschi?s theory of juvenile delinquency is an explanation of why youth obey the law, not why they break it (Schram, 2003). Hirschi maintained that the social bond an individual has to others has an influence on juvenile delinquency. ?The weaker the individual?s social bond, the greater the chances the individual commits a crime? (Britt, 2003, p. 173). The importance of social bonds is that it constrains people from acting only in their own self- interest and forces them to recognize the consequences of their actions and how it may affect others (Britt, 2003). These ties are important in that they create obligations and restraints that impose significant costs for translating criminal propensities into action (MacKenzie, Wilson, Armstrong & Gover, 2004). By using social capital, young people can be insulated from risk factors by having healthy beliefs and engaging in pro-social behaviors (Krisberg, 2005). Social sanctions are penalties received from others, such as when a parent expresses disapproval, a friend withdraws affection, or a stranger expresses outrage (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 2003). According to Hirschi and Gottfredson (2003), social sanctions are the most significant measures of controlling behavior because there is a major assumption that people care for the opinion of others and are therefore punished when others disapprove of their behavior. ?If an individual engages in behavior that is inconsistent with the standards and norms of those to whom they are bonded, the bond may be threatened, if the behavior is exposed? (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996, p. 157). 20 Hirschi?s (1969) social bond theory was a variation of control theory that introduced four elements associated with social control. With control theory, control of an individual is based on an individual?s feelings toward the person or persons making the rule (Baker, 1991). The focal points of Hirschi?s model are the relationship and interactions an individual has with others. These relationships consist of attachment to parents and school, commitment to societal goals, involvement in conventional activities and belief in legitimate values (Schram, 2003). Each of the social bonds is interrelated. Beliefs According to Hirschi (1969) delinquency is caused by the absence of beliefs that forbid delinquency. It relates to the failure of youth to meet certain obligations expected of them by society (Cavan & Ferdinand, 1975). This failure leads to isolation and undermines their attachment to society and their adoption of attitudes and beliefs inconsistent with society (Barlow & Ferdinand, 1992). Youth integrate into society based on the norms or beliefs to which they personally adhere (Angenent & de Man, 1996). The internalization or resistance of these standards become part of the individual?s value system and help determine which activities the individual views as morally acceptable (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996). Youth who do not feel part of society and are less convinced of the moral significance of the dominant system of norms and values, of the validity of social rules, and the usefulness and importance of social regulations are at a greater risk for delinquency (Angenent & de Man, 1996). Whereas, the juvenile who feels good about the community, believes he or she is getting a fair chance, enjoys taking part in the activities being offered and is looking forward to participation in society as an adult will likely abide by the law most of the time without the threat of being punished 21 (Baker, 1991). The more beliefs coincide with the norms of the dominant culture, the greater the possibility that they will recognize the reasonableness and legitimacy of the dominant culture and will adapt to its customs (Angenent & de Man, 1996). Attachment Attachment to Family. Attachment theory, as applied to juvenile delinquency, proposes that children who commit crimes lack significant bonds to family or peers (Barlow & Ferndinand, 1992). Juveniles who lack parental supervision and appropriate punishment and who are not attached to prosocial family members are more likely to be delinquent (Gebo, 2007). Non-attached children are more likely to engage in delinquent behavior because they have not learned the difference between acceptable and non- acceptable behavior (Hinmon, 2000). The one variable all delinquents have in common is the absence of adequate parental influence to have prevented delinquency (Coffey, 1974) as identification of a problem child usually identifies a problem family (Baker, 1991). For that reason, Barlow and Ferdinand (1992) regard the family as the first line of defense against juvenile misbehavior. The family plays a vital role in the development of values and beliefs by laying the foundation for acceptable behavior. Young people acquire positive beliefs by becoming bonded with individuals, community institutions and peer groups that hold these views (Krisberg, 2005). Within families children learn to interact with others, are taught what is right or wrong, internalize conventional norms and customs, and are instructed how to behave (Angenent & de Man, 1996). Learning to defer pleasures of mood, to attend to one?s obligations, to wait one?s turn in line, to negotiate needs with 22 others and to respect the rights of others requires training and teaching by someone who cares (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 2003). These qualities are exactly what children should learn from their family. It is important to understand a child?s family system and socialization process in order to understand the child?s delinquent behavior (Yablonsky, 2000). Yablonsky defines socialization as the process by which one learns to participate effectively in society. Delinquent behavior is a learned behavior, acquired through the process of socialization and the family is the most significant agent of socialization (Angenent & de Man, 1996; Gibbons, 1976). ?An important aspect of the socialization process as a deterrent to delinquency is the quality of interaction between parent and child? (Yablonsky, 2000, p. 316). The closer a child is to his parents the more strongly he is bound to their expectations, and therefore the more strongly he is to conform to legal norms of the larger society (Hirschi, 1969). People have a desire to please those persons they care about most. They also fear losing the affection of others if they act in some way that may be harmful to those people they care about (Britt, 2003). An emotional detachment compromises the child?s ability to experience a feeling of guilt or remorse (DeLisi, 2003). This disconnect leads to an emotional deficit and the incapacity to form interpersonal relationships or to care about others, according to Hinmon (2000). Those who love and respect their parents and feel a strong emotional attachment to them will tend to follow their instructions, even when removed from them (Baker, 1991). A child?s role and membership in his or her family can influence the way in which he or she interacts with others. The social processes that have an affect on 23 delinquency include interaction with delinquent peers, unequal access to societal goals, weak bonds to conventional social institutions, abject parental socialization and stigmatizing involvement in the juvenile justice system (DeLisi, 2003). The dynamics of those relationships are representational of a youth?s exchanges and encounters with non- family members. According to Emler and Reicher (1995), delinquent behaviors are predicated on the adolescent?s reaction to formal authority. A lack of concern for the reaction of parents generalizes as a lack of concern for the approval of other persons in positions of authority (Hirschi, 1969). Hirschi adds that the child who does not need the love and approval of his parents will tend not to need the love and approval of others. The demands of conformity are understood, but those making the demands are not respected and the punishment they propose is not considered serious (Hirschi, 1969). Consequently, the penalty for deviation is weak. On the contrary, the person who is closely attached to his parents is rewarded for conformity by the approval and esteem of those whom he admires. Attachment to School. Delinquency is an expression of negative orientation to formal authority, especially school authority, as school is the first institution of society besides the family with whom the youth interacts (Angenent & de Man, 1996; Emler & Reicher, 1995). Youth with weak affectional ties to their parents tend to have little concern for the opinion of their teachers or school officials as well (Hirschi, 1969). Formal education provides children with their first direct and extended experience with an organization and its authority, thus their attitudes toward any authority are related to attitudes toward formal authority as encountered at school (Emler & Reicher, 1995). 24 When a child begins school, he or she encounters a new way of ordering social relationships and coordinating activities (Emler & Reicher, 1995). Some adolescents are willing to accept the rules and regulations and persevere at academic tasks and freely accept instructions from teachers, whereas, adolescents who perceive the environment as uncongenial will adapt less positively to demands, regulations, classroom interaction and teacher authority (Emler & Reicher, 1995). ?Children who have not learned at home how to behave in a socially acceptable manner will act accordingly, not only in the family, but also elsewhere? (Angenent & de Man, 1996, p. 5). Their behavior at home parallels with behaviors exhibited by youth at school: The family seems to be a foundation for sound development through adolescence. When parent-child relations are solid, the child avoids destructive, malicious peers, adjusts well to the rigors of school, and in general makes a good adjustment during adolescence. When parent-child relations are flawed, the child selects malicious, delinquent peers and cannot tolerate school. (Barlow & Ferdinand, 1992, p. 158) Walker, Ramsey and Gresham (2004) consider antisocial behavior in a child?s school career as the single best predictor of delinquency. Antisocial behavior as related to school infractions includes defiance of adult authority, noncompliance of rules as reflected in school/office referrals, aggression, bullying, stealing and truancy (Walker, Ramsey & Gresham, 2004). There are no insignificant violations of school rules when it comes to students who are delinquent offenders (Stephens & Arnette, 2000). A student who has 10 or more discipline referrals within a given school year is at-risk for school 25 failure, delinquency, and a host of other negative outcomes (Sprague, Walker, Stieber, Simonsen, Nishioka and Wagner 2001). Sprague, Walker, Stieber, Simonsen, Nishioka and Wagner 2001 found a correlation between community-based offenses and the frequency of school discipline referrals. According to Sprague, Walker, Stieber, Simonsen, Nishioka and Wagner, at- risk youth who have chronic discipline problems in school are often those juveniles who offend outside of school. They noted that future study was warranted to find the correlation between specific types of juvenile court contact and categories of school referrals. Hirschi (1969) hypothesized that academic competence is linked to delinquency by way of success in and attachment to school. ?The causal chain runs from academic incompetence to poor school performance to disliking of school to rejection of the school?s authority to commission of delinquent acts? (Hirschi, 1969, p. 132). Maladjusted youth, those with poor academic performance and discipline problems, are vulnerable to hostility, ridicule and ostracism, according to Barlow and Ferdinand (1992). Juveniles who fail academically, have low bonding to their schools or have made frequent school transitions are more likely to persist in delinquent conduct (Caeti & Fritsch, 2003). A student who is failing, attending school infrequently and surrounded by peers who encourage him or her to engage in illegal behaviors may aspire to graduate, but has no safety net (Balfanz, et al., 2003). Many at-risk youth make a disastrous choice of dropping out of school or behaving in ways that cause them to be neglected or pushed out of the school setting (Stephens & Arnette, 2000), simply because students who 26 experience repeated failure often react by ?rejecting the rejector? (Barlow & Ferdinand, 1992, p. 161). Over time, failures lose interest in school, adopt a rejecting attitude, do not adopt the conventional norms of the school and after a while no longer respect its moral authority (Angenent & de Man, 1996). The academically competent student is more likely to do well in school and as a result will probably like school more and be less likely to be delinquent (Hirschi, 1969). On the other hand, youth who do not achieve educational success have an increased likelihood to obtain societal goals through illegitimate means (Schram, 2003). If school is perceived as a path to personal progress as opposed to an environment of external control, then students will choose to obey teachers, instead of challenge them (Emler & Reicher, 1995). Schools play a major role in shaping delinquents, as failure in school is typically a precursor to delinquency (Baker, 1991; Barlow & Ferdinand, 1992). Schools are valuable resources for delinquency prevention because they can help to counter the adverse influences to which young people are exposed and can assist students in developing prosocial values and positive thinking and communication skills (Lawrence 2003). Lawrence (2003), found that the most effective school programs are those programs that focus on social competency skills, such as self-control, responsible decision making, problem solving and communication. Schools and community agencies must increase efforts to prevent juvenile delinquency and provide programs that will facilitate rehabilitation, education and vocational training for youth who are involved (Sprague, et al., 2001). With the involvement of the family and school on the child?s 27 behalf, the family can be more effective than anything the juvenile justice system can provide (Barlow & Ferdinand, 1992). Involvement Hirschi (1969) considers involvement in conventional activities as the most relevant to delinquent behavior. Youth who are involved in conventional activities have less time and energy to participate in criminal activity (Angenent & de Man, 1996). Angenent and de Man (1996) define commitment as an investment; investments are good measures of social integration as youth will not likely jeopardize these investments. A person who is involved in activities is tied to appointments, deadlines and places, thereby decreasing the opportunity to commit deviant acts. Achievement, participation and overall involvement in school-related activities have a negative correlation with delinquency (Shoemaker, 2005). Participation in structured extracurricular activities provides adolescents with a sense of achievement and diverts free time that may otherwise be occupied with antisocial activities (DeMatteo & Marczyk, 2005). Commitment Juveniles cannot simply wish to ?be something or be somebody? unless their desire is supported in words and deeds (Hirschi, 1969, p. 178). The wish is not enough to affect behavior. If a person loses his motivation to strive for conventional goals, he is free to commit deviant acts without concern for consequences (Hirschi, 1969). Commitment to prosocial activities and people affect the development of beliefs in validating society?s rules of conduct (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996). 28 The Juvenile Justice System The juvenile justice system is a distinguished branch of the judicial system responsible for promoting the overall well being of children and their families. The juvenile justice system is an enigma to most education agencies and school officials, due to the sensitive and complex nature of juvenile issues. Educational and justice institutions each operate under their own institutional mission. Thus, there is little collaboration among agencies representing juveniles. To combat the deficiency that exists with this lack of knowledge and initiate a channel of communication, an overview is provided of the juvenile justice system beginning with the adjudication process and concluding with disposition options available to court officials. Additionally, the advantages and disadvantages of disposition alternatives are included. Lastly, interagency collaboration emerges in this section as a component for successful intervention efforts to reduce youth delinquency. Juvenile Courts Juvenile courts operate under the premise that adjudicated youth are in need of education and guidance, not punishment (Hinmon, 2000). Care rather than custody has become the hallmark of many juvenile courts (Patenaud, 2003), as is the case with the state of Alabama. The Alabama Juvenile Justice Act (? 12-15-1.1) outlines the goals of the juvenile court to include the following: ? To preserve and strengthen the child?s family or reunite children with their families as quickly as possible when the child has been removed from the home. ? To promote the use of community-based alternatives as deterrents to acts of juvenile delinquency and as least restrictive dispositional alternatives. 29 ? To hold a child found to be delinquent accountable for his or her actions to the extent of the child?s age, education, mental and physical condition, background and all other relevant factors to provide a program of supervision, care and rehabilitation. ? To achieve goals in the least restrictive setting necessary, with a preference for the preservation of family and the integration of parental accountability. ? To promote a continuum of services for the child and his/her family from delinquency prevention to aftercare. Juveniles are treated differently than adults because it is assumed that they are less responsible for their deviance and their illegal behavior has not developed into a permanent criminal pattern, making them more responsive to behavioral changes than adult offenders (Yablonsky, 2000). Baker (1991) described the differences between the juvenile justice system and the adult criminal court: ? Juveniles are not found guilty because they are presumed to be too young to be legally responsible for their acts. Petitions (or allegations) against juveniles are found to be true. ? Dispositions of the court are made under the guise of therapy and rehabilitation and not punishment. ? Since rehabilitation is the goal, the needs of the individual juvenile, not the act itself, determine the length and severity of the disposition. ? Adjudicatory hearings are closed to the public. ? No one incident determines adjudication; other factors, such as family history and academic record are presented at the hearing. 30 The Path of Juvenile Justice The juvenile justice process begins with an arrest and/or petition of a juvenile. Petitions are similar to warrants for adults in which an accusation is made against a person and law enforcement agencies follow up accordingly. The diagram in Figure 1 reveals the path of the juvenile justice system and illustrates the juvenile justice process. The diagram depicts the juvenile justice process beginning with the initial contact and continues to release. Figure 1. Juvenile Justice System Structure and Process (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention) A juvenile can enter into the system through a law enforcement agency or a non- law enforcement agency. Delinquent and status offense cases are referred to juvenile Dismissal 31 courts by law enforcement, social service agencies, probation officers, schools and parents (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). For many delinquent youth, social service agencies have previous or on-going involvement within their families (Reconnecting, n.d.). Upon entry into the juvenile justice system, a decision is made whether to process the matter further into the juvenile justice system, to divert the case out of the system or to transfer the case to adult criminal court (Mazzotti & Higgins, 2006). It is the responsibility of the juvenile probation department to handle the court intake function (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). It decides whether to dismiss the case, handle the matter informally, to request intervention by the juvenile court or waive the matter to criminal court: Formal case handling involves the filing of a petition requesting that the court hold an adjudicatory or waiver hearing. Decision makers (police, probation, intake, prosecutor or other screening officer) may consider informal case handling, if they believe that accountability can be achieved without formal court intervention. Compared with informally handled (nonpetitioned) cases, formally processed (petitioned) delinquency cases tend to involve more serious offenses, older juveniles and juveniles with longer court histories. If the court decides to handle the matter informally, the offender agrees to comply with one or more sanctions such as community service, victim restitution, or voluntary probation supervision. Informal cases are generally held open pending successful completion of the disposition. If the court?s conditions are met, the charges are dismissed. If, however, the offender does not fulfill the conditions, the case is likely to be petitioned for formal processing (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006, p. 171). 32 At any point during the process, a juvenile may be detained or referred to the criminal justice system as an adult. If a juvenile is tried as an adult, he or she can no longer be subject to the authority of the juvenile court. Juveniles may also enter into a diversion track at the discretion of the intake or probation officer in the early phases of the process. Successful completion of a diversion program averts an adolescent out of the juvenile justice system. When a case is referred to juvenile court, the intake officer may decide to hold the youth in a detention facility while the case is being processed, but generally only if there is a risk. A youth may be placed in a secure juvenile detention facility at any point during the processing of his/her case or after a juvenile court judge renders a decision depending on the severity of the case (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). Secure detention refers to the holding of a youth upon arrest in a detention facility for two purposes: to make sure the youth appears for court hearings and to protect the community and the youth from future offenses (Austin, Johnson & Weitzer, 2005). According to Austin, Johnson and Weitzer, one-third of all youth held in juvenile detention centers are detained for status offenses or technical violations of probation. Detaining a youth in a detention facility is usually a last resort for serious, violent, or chronic delinquents, including status offenders (Austin, Johnson & Weitzer, 2005). Juveniles are usually released to their parents if parents can show that they can control the juvenile and give their assurance of the good behavior of the juvenile until the court hearing (Information Guide, n.d.). However, if a juvenile is taken out of his home, then there must be a clear inability of the parents to handle or control the juvenile (Information 33 Guide, n.d.). According to Austin, Johnson and Weitzer (2005), risk assessment factors include the following: ? Number and severity of the current charges ? Record and history with juvenile court ? History of success or failure while under previous community programs ? Age, school attendance, and achievement and family structure In the final segment of the process, upon adjudication, the flow chart indicates that there are several dispositions juveniles may receive including probation, non- custodial placement or placement in a custodial setting. The arrows may flow to other measures, indicating that there are additional alternatives provided if one intervention fails to meet the desired goals of the court. Dispositions are designed to meet individual needs; and it is during this phase of the juvenile court hearing that emphasis is placed on social, psychological and other individual factors (Krisberg, 2005). The dispositions available to courts for youthful offenders include probation, secure detention and secure confinement. The juvenile justice system applies a graduated system of sanctions and interventions that are described as immediate, intermediate and secure sanctions according to Krisberg. Immediate sanctions include diversion, mentoring, teen court and day treatment; intermediate sanctions include restitution, boot camps, community service, and intensive supervision; while secure sanctions include electronic monitoring, community-based residential or community confinement, training schools and incarceration. 34 Adjudicated Youth Most delinquent youth are referred to juvenile court for minor violations of the law or status offenses. Status offenses are violations against the law for minors such as underage drinking, running away from home, and truancy from school. Status offenses are behaviors considered inappropriate or unhealthy for adolescents and are restricted because of the offender?s age, but are not illegal if committed by adults (DeLisi, 2003). According to Barlow and Ferdinand (1992), status offenses are the foundation for which the juvenile justice system was established in order to address youth who refused to attend school or obey their parents. According to Baker (1991), status offenses are the result of failure on the part of irresponsible parents, schools or society in general. Advanced status offenses are usually related to juveniles being uncooperative with parents, teachers, or social service professionals (Barlow & Ferdinand, 1992). Only a small percentage of adolescents commit serious offenses; moreover, status offenses go unnoticed or unpunished for a vast majority of youth (Mays, 2003). Thus, status offending is considered an antecedent to more serious delinquent offending (DeLisi, 2003). Probation Probation, the most common disposition ordered by juvenile courts, is viewed as a form of leniency allowing a person to stay in the community instead of being sent to a custodial or residential facility (Yablonsky, 2000). Probation is used when the court feels that supervision by a probation officer will correct the behavior (Information Guide, n.d.). The supervision under probation typically requires the juvenile to attend school and 35 participate in random drug and alcohol testing and home checks (Davis, 2003). Probation may be for a specific period of time or it may be open-ended (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). According to Yablonsky (2000), probation officers have large caseloads and divide probationers based on their level of need. Those clients who need maximum services are seen frequently?two to three times a week; these clients make up approximately 5% of a probation officer?s caseload. ?Even with smaller caseloads, a client is seldom seen more than twice a month by his or her probation officer? (Yablonsky, 2000, p. 419). It would be difficult to maintain any connection with a client when contact is limited. Most probation officers have a caseload exceeding one hundred clients, which, as Yablonsky (2000) asserts, reduces the therapeutic impact that probation should have on an adjudicated youth. The goal of probation is to protect the community, hold juvenile offenders accountable and assist juvenile offenders in developing skills needed to become law- abiding adults (Ferro, 2003). ?Good probation? should be much more than just giving adolescents another chance (Coffey, 1974, p. 113). Krisberg (2005) defined the case management of juveniles as the process of identifying clear expectations for behavioral change that should occur within each sanctioning option. The conditions imposed on juveniles who are under probation are designed to prevent repetition of delinquent behavior; prevent long-term involvement in deviant conduct; and assist the youth in becoming a productive citizen (Coffey, 1974). 36 Custodial Setting When probation or other community programs fail to control a delinquent?s behavior, he or she may be placed in a custodial institution (Davis, 2003; Yablonsky, 2000). Secure confinement is the placement of a youth after he/she has been adjudicated and committed to custodial care for a few months to a few years. When making decisions about the appropriate program in which to place a juvenile offender, court officials must balance the interests of public safety along with the needs of the offender (Austin, Johnson & Weitzer, 2005). High Intensive Treatment Program ?States can reduce their reliance on secure detention and confinement, choosing instead to place youth in graduated sanctions programs that are responsive to the risks and needs of the delinquent youth? (Austin, Johnson & Weitzer, 2005, p. 3). Graduated sanction programs such as boot camps were first opened in the United States in 1983 in the adult correctional system with facilities in Georgia and Oklahoma (MacKenzie, Wilson & Kider, 2004). Boot camps for juveniles originated in 1992 as a solution to juvenile crime rates by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency and Prevention (Tyler, Darville & Stalnaker, 2001). Now, more and more states are implementing boot camp programs (Felker & Bourque, 1996). Boot camps are designed to be an intermediate sanction to rehabilitate adjudicated youth for non-violent offenses. Offenders are sentenced to an intermediate sanction, such as boot camp, because their actions are not viewed as serious enough for incarceration, but those actions cannot be dismissed without some form of punishment (Anderson, 37 Dyson & Burns, 1999). Juvenile boot camps are less severe than long-term confinement, but more severe than supervised release or probation (Felker & Bourque, 1996). Deterrence and punishment appear to be the two primary reasons for public and political support for boot camps; but there is also interest in the rehabilitative aspects of the program (MacKenzie & Souryal, 2004). However, the primary mission of the juvenile justice system through its programs is treatment and rehabilitation, not retribution and punishment (Armstrong & MacKenzie, 2003). The success of boot camps when compared to incarceration remains questionable (Flash, 2003). Some researchers have concluded that boot camps and other similar programs are less effective than what the public believes (Tyler, Darville & Stalnaker, 2001). According to Krisberg (2005), large-scale juvenile training schools such as boot camps have been shown to be unproductive. Krisberg further substantiated the findings stating that it is not plausible that one single programmatic approach will be effective for the wide range of needs of young people who come into contact with the juvenile justice system. In the adult correctional boot camp, the only program characteristic that showed a strong relationship to the effectiveness of the juvenile boot camp programs was the presence of an aftercare treatment component (MacKenzie, Wilson & Kider, 2004). MacKenzie, Gover, Armstrong & Mitchell (2001) found in their study that boot camp environments were perceived to have more components conducive to rehabilitation as opposed to other custodial settings. ?Boot camp juveniles said they were better prepared for release, were given more therapeutic programming, had more structure and control and were more active than comparison facility youths? (MacKenzie, Gover, Armstrong & 38 Mitchell, 2001, p. 1). Additionally, this study found that few of the boot camps or traditional facilities had information about what happens to youth after they are released. According to Flash (2003), the research on the effectiveness of boot camps is sparse and further research is needed if juvenile courts insist on keeping boot camps as a viable treatment option for youthful offenders. The Impact of Juvenile Justice Programs For a vast majority of delinquents, the juvenile court does nothing ?to, or for,? them (Baker, 1991, p. 18). This misguided comparison, as Baker terms it, creates a revolving door in which juveniles are released to their parents, placed on meaningless probation and are back out on the street. The juvenile justice system often reacts with no intervention at all or with the maximum possible intervention, usually based on the availability of community resources (Patenanund, 2003). The lack of response or discrepancy can be attributed to several factors. Juveniles are often given lenient dispositions, because the court attempts to preserve the family unit as well as steer juveniles from future acts of delinquent behavior. Juvenile courts use diversion programs to deter juveniles from committing future criminal acts. In addition, there is a significant lag between the delinquent act and the disposition given by the court. Often, criminal justice penalties are typically too far removed for the decisions to make a difference (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 2003). A pattern of delinquent behavior must be determined before a juvenile is adjudicated. If their behavior is based on a series of incidents, then juveniles may experience a prolonged period without any consequences to their actions. There is only the threat or idea of punishment. Consequently, this inefficiency causes minor matters to go without 39 consequence and the only response to more serious violations is placement or, in some cases, a return to the custodial setting (Reconnecting, n.d.). For sanctions to be effective, they must be imposed promptly following a violation (Reconnecting, n.d.). In order for deterrence to be successful, punishment must be certain and swift (Scheidegger, 2003). Sanctions should follow the delinquent act as soon as possible; the shorter the interval between the crime and legal action, the more of an impression it will make on the juvenile (Angenent & de Man, 1996). Increasing the certainty of sanctions and reducing the time delay may produce desired effects in the implementation of corrective juvenile justice dispositions (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 2003). Another common weakness of the juvenile justice system is the inability to impose sanctions proportional to the seriousness of the violation (Reconnecting, n.d.). According to Baker (1991) when the court does do something, it leaves juveniles bitter due to the inconsistency of the court; the juvenile sees the actions as arbitrary and rebels in accepting authority. Young people do better when adults in authority set well-defined and consistent boundaries and the adults are prepared to respond with proportionate and fair restrictions to adolescents who test those limits (Krisberg, 2005). A custodial sentence may result in both positive and negative changes in a person?s attitudes and individual circumstances (McAllister, Bottomley & Liebling, 1992). When juveniles enter into boot camp it becomes a critical life event which could possibly change due to the reevaluation by an individual of his own life (MacKenzie, Wilson, Armstrong & Gover, 2004). By the time children reach puberty, most of their attitudes and behavioral habits?self concept, emotional responses and personality?have already crystallized (Baker, 1991). According to DeLisi (2003), well-meaning social 40 scientists, probation officers, mental health counselors and juvenile judges cannot realistically rectify these voids: Concepts, such as correction and rehabilitation literally mean to restore to a prior state or condition of health, functioning or capacity. To be corrected, an individual must have been functioning in the first place. Theoretically, the purpose of sanctions is to compel the deviant to relinquish their deviance and recommit to conformity. But, what if they have never conformed? Can individuals learn to do something (e.g., behave) that was precluded by their socialization experiences? (p. 29). It is impossible to predict whether a youth has been rehabilitated or not, and therefore it is impossible to determine the optimum time for release (Baker, 1991). Interventions must be of sufficient duration if they are to have a long-term effect on recidivism (Reconnecting, n. d.). Adjudicated youth need more resources than the adherence to authority for a short period of time in a boot camp (Tyler, Darville & Stalnaker, 2001). Those resources include community and parental support, educational and vocational training coupled with caseworkers who understand the need for long-term adjustments rather than accepting short-term solutions. An adolescent can exhibit a considerable amount of self-control in the face of direct control, but may respond differently when faced with the pressures from their normal environment (Tyler, Darville & Stalnaker, 2001). Tyler, Darville and Stalnaker pose the question, Is the self-control demonstrated by a juvenile participating in boot camp a temporary extension of the control of the boot camp? When the justice system is no longer providing structure and guidance, the person should be able to function and 41 make law-abiding choices independently (Reconnecting, n.d.). While in correctional programs, such as boot camp, participants experience structured schedules and even acquire new skills (Todis, Bullis, Waintrup, Schultz & D?Ambrosio, 2001). If institutional programs are going to have an impact on future criminal activities and adjustment of youth, then those programs must impact the social bonds, impulsivity and antisocial attitudes of those youth (MacKenzie, Wilson, Armstrong & Gover, 2001). Based upon that theory, the experience of being in a custodial facility or the programs in the facility could increase the attitudes of commitment to conformity or ties to social institutions, such as family and school, then future acts of delinquency will decrease. However, the major characteristics of boot camps suggest that these programs, by design, have programs that would not increase ties or communication with others outside the facility: Restrictions are placed on visitation; family members have limited contact with juveniles and the structured environment is very different than the juveniles? normal (school) environment (MacKenzie, Wilson, Armstrong & Gover, 2004). Tyler, Darville and Stalnaker (2001) suggest concentrating on giving children skills to cope, rather than trying to change lifelong behavior patterns: The overall conclusion we must draw from this study is that juvenile boot camps are likely to be ineffective both in terms of costs and recidivism, unless they incorporate a program to give a delinquent the skills, the motivation and the resources to avoid the environment and lifestyle that contributed to the delinquency in the first place. A short-term shock-incarceration program such as those employed by many of our growing number of juvenile boot camps is unlikely to correct inappropriate behavior that has taken a lifetime to develop. 42 New skills and self-confidence are far more important to a former juvenile delinquent?s future than is short-term forced compliance with society?s rules. The implication, therefore, is that no matter what an adolescent learns in juvenile boot camp programs, he/she must have support for a new lifestyle after leaving the boot camp to avoid recidivism (p. 454). Austin, Johnson and Weitzer (2005) advocate for alternatives to youth confinement. One reason for this suggestion is that youth who are detained for long periods of time have little opportunity for positive influences, such as family and school, even though they are separated from negative factors. In general, programming is not designed to address chronic problems such as truancy or substance abuse. The focus, according to Austin, Johnson and Weitzer, is placed on assisting the youth in adjusting to the correctional environment instead of easing the transition back to the community upon release. New skills and self-confidence are more important than the forced compliance with society?s rules which are short-term goals (Tyler, Darville & Stalnaker, 2001). Aftercare The future of youth released from secure facilities is dependent upon the existence of aftercare programs that emphasize effective, integrated and individualized treatment services to help them reintegrate successfully (Baltodano, Platt & Roberts, 2005). Aftercare is an extension of the custodial disposition, in which juveniles are supervised by a probation officer and ordered to complete certain requirements. It is an essential ingredient in reducing recidivism for delinquent youth. Aftercare programs are designed to facilitate behavioral, social and attitudinal changes that boot camps have instilled in 43 participants, and intend to help youth make the transition back into the community (Anderson, Dyson & Burns, 1999; Gordon, 2003). In 1974, Coffey described aftercare as the weakest link in the juvenile justice process. Aftercare gets less attention because probation and case managers are often overloaded (Tyler, Darville & Stalnaker, 2001). A number of states have begun to place more emphasis on post custodial care, which Baker (1991) feels should be more meaningful than ?perfunctory probation? (p. 321). Many of these youth have already failed at intensive supervision or probation, which is essentially what the concept of aftercare is (Tyler, Darville & Stalnaker, 2001). Among the reasons for recidivism and failure of programs is that upon completion of boot camp or other programs, delinquents return to the same inadequate family situation and dysfunctional communities, the same schools, the same delinquent friends and the same conditions that nurtured their delinquency (Anderson, Dyson & Burns, 1999; Baker, 1991). ?Upon release, these same youths are now required to reenter the real world in which they must confront many choices, some of which propel them back to criminal behavior? (Krisberg, 2005, p. 153). Few corrections practitioners believe that recidivism rates depend mainly on factors adjudicated youth can control (MacKenzie, Styve & Gover, 2004). Change for a child is more difficult because he/she has less control over his/her environment than an adult, and it would be unrealistic to hope to change the child, his family, his peers and his neighborhood (Coffey, 1974). ?They are expected to avoid the same criminogenic factors that they were unable to avoid before being sentenced to boot camp? (Anderson, Dyson & Burns, 1999, p. 99). 44 ?When returning to an environment that lacks such regimentation and positive group activities, the juveniles may revert to their old ways of surviving in and relating to the community in which they live? (MacKenzie, Gover, Armstrong & Mitchell, 2001, p. 2). The communities to which juveniles are returning are often marked by significant family dysfunction, poverty, limited employment opportunities, poor school adjustment and negative peer relationships (Baltodano, Platt & Roberts, 2005). Unless probationers are provided adequate aftercare?supervision, counseling, monitoring and meaningful academic and vocational skills, that approach, according to Anderson, Dyson and Burns (1999), is unrealistic. The greater the emphasis on treatments, such as counseling, vocational education and aftercare transition, the greater the likelihood that boot camps will have a positive impact on juveniles (MacKenzie, Wilson & Kider, 2004). Aftercare programs should address the educational, employment, counseling and support needs for each individual (Yablonsky, 2000). According to Todis, et. al., (2001), postcorrection support is insufficient to allow the youth to transition smoothly back to their communities. Such a system puts the burden on the adolescent and focuses on individual accountability and responsibility? ignoring some important facts, such as: 1) Adjudicated youth are still adolescents; 2) they do not use successful problem skills outside of the correctional setting; 3) many have drug addictions; and 4) few have positive adult role models. If assessment is not a pre-release requirement, then the court should ensure that a risk/needs/strengths assessment is conducted prior to the release date to formulate an individualized reentry plan (Reconnecting, n. d.). 45 McAllister, Bottomley and Liebling (1992) presented four principles influencing the rehabilitation and effectiveness of programs in the juvenile justice system: 1) The custodial sentence did not occur in isolation; therefore, the sentence must be viewed in the context of what preceded it and what is to follow; 2) contact with the community must be maintained and developed while the juvenile is in custodial care; 3) the disposition can lead to positive changes in the juvenile?s attitude and lifestyle; and 4) the progress the juvenile makes while confined should be the concern of the institution as well as the outside community. In order to capitalize on the positive changes upon return to the normal environment, there needs to be cooperation between the young offender, the custodial setting and the supervising agency (McAllister, Bottomley & Liebling, 1992). The Reentry Process Repeated delinquency affects educational opportunities and contributes to low expectations (Hinmon, 2000). Hinmon adds that delinquents become entrapped in the consequences of their behavior. As a result, individuals who engage in criminal activity during adolescence and lacking other alternatives are more likely to continue as adults (Hinmon, 2000). ?Long-term offender success is directly related to educational attainment and employment? (Reconnecting, n.d., p. 7). Juveniles are often ordered to attend school immediately upon their release from a residential treatment program. Regular school attendance and successful school performance helps to meet satisfactory probation and aftercare supervision (Lawrence, 2003). Regrettably, young offenders reentering the public school system from custodial settings are alienated and are still affected by influences that initially placed them under court authority (Stephens & 46 Arnette, 2000). It is important that schools, in collaboration with other agencies, provide support and structure for those young people who have had contact with the juvenile justice system (Stephens & Arnette, 2000). Proper reintegration must first include appropriate assessment and classification criteria, followed by individualized case planning to include family and community goals (Tyler, Darville & Stalnaker, 2001). Cooperation and communication between the institution, parole officers and community agencies such as schools must take place in order to facilitate the delinquent?s successful reentry into non-delinquent society (Coffey, 1974). The lack of coordination and collaboration among schools, juvenile justice systems and community agencies is a critical impediment to the development of effective aftercare programming for juvenile offenders (Stephens & Arnette, 2000). ?We need to build effective partnerships between families, schools, social service systems, public safety departments, churches and other agencies to create the socializing experiences that will give all our youth a chance to develop along positive lines? (Walker & Sprague, 1999, p. 72). In order to smooth the transition of an adjudicated child from a detention facility, the school must develop a relationship with the probation officer of the child involved in the JJS [juvenile justice system]. Providing probation officers access to an office or room at the school will enable students to visit their probation officer without leaving the school campus. (Mazzotti & Higgins, 2006, p. 299) One of the greatest challenges for schools is working with youthful offenders who are returning to the community after spending time in a correctional facility (Lawrence, 2003). Improving the school performance of student probationers is a key objective for 47 achieving that goal as the success of a long-term offender is directly related to educational attainment (Stephens & Arnette, 2000). The primary goal is to provide guidance by helping juvenile probationers avoid situations that may lead them into further involvement with the juvenile justice system. ?Educators and juvenile probation officers share a common goal: helping young people acquire knowledge and develop skills that lead to positive and productive lifestyles? (Stephens & Arnette, 2000, p. 12). It is essential that the local school district be involved as full, collaborative partners from the outset (Reconnecting, n. d.). Unfortunately, the two institutions that need to work together?neighborhood schools and the juvenile justice system?tend to work at cross purposes (Balfanz et al., 2003). To monitor improvement, the two agencies must share relevant information with each other (Stephens & Arnette, 2000). However, the process of obtaining needed information is daunting, involving time-consuming phone calls to previous institutions and encounters with individuals who often refuse to disseminate information, citing confidentiality laws (Stephens & Arnette, 2000). The probation officer needs to be aware of the prior academic functioning of the student and the school needs to know about treatment needs (Stephens & Arnette, 2000). In fact, according to Lawrence (2003), ?Probation officials are encouraged to inform school officials about the court status and disposition of students? (p. 338). Inefficiencies in information sharing complicate the reintegration of juvenile offenders into school settings, hindering the educational process as indicated by Stephens and Arnette (2000): A prime example of inadequate information sharing is the situation that often arises when a student returns to school after detention or confinement. Educators 48 must often guess about vital information missing from the student?s file, such as information about treatment history, family problems, probationary status or court-ordered mandates of aftercare services (e.g., attendance and behavior requirements). (p. 3) According to Lawrence (2003) the dilemma was resolved in 1994 when the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) was amended to promote active information sharing between educators and juvenile justice personnel. It allows educators to share information with juvenile justice agencies without parental consent, if: 1) a court orders it; 2) the school is taking legal action against a student; 3) the information is needed by a juvenile justice agency prior to adjudication; and 4) it is a law enforcement record created and maintained by a school resource officer (Lawrence, 2003). Lawrence (2003) described how the relation between court officials and educators has evolved: The courts enforce truancy laws and adjudicate youth charged with more serious offenses. School officials are often called on to testify in court offering information on school attendance and behavior of juveniles being sentenced. Judges recognize the importance of education in the rehabilitation process and consistently order juveniles on probation to attend school regularly and obey school rules. Despite what seems to be a close and cooperative working relationship, however, the courts and schools until recently, had been reluctant to disclose information in records that are considered confidential. Teachers and juvenile court officers faced a real dilemma. Out of concern for their safety, teachers wanted to know about the delinquency records. However, juvenile 49 generally forbade courts to disclose such information in the interest of maintaining privacy and confidentiality of juvenile offenders. In writing court reports and recommendations to the judge regarding youthful offenders, probation officers were expected to include youth?s school attendance, behavior and achievement. But school officials refused to share those confidential records without a court order and/or parents? permission. (p. 337) Although Lawrence?s explanation of the law supports the disclosure of a student?s court status and disposition to school officials, this practice does not always take place. Juvenile offenders often arrive at school setting without any academic documentation from correctional facilities (Stephens & Arnette, 2000). According to Keely (2006), hurdles still exist between and among the courts, social service agencies and schools. Keely advocates for legislation that will remove the interagency restrictions and delineate a process for information data collection and sharing between and among agencies. To promote a seamless transition, effective interagency collaboration must occur among the juvenile court, correctional system, schools, local probation, law enforcement and mental health (Reconnecting, n.d.). Every community-based agency that comes into contact with the juvenile should play a role in the reintegration process (Tyler, Darville & Stalnaker, 2001). ?An important reason for coordinating transition services is to avoid problems that may arise from inadequate information sharing between correctional facilities and schools? (Stephens & Arnette, 2000, p. 5). The lack of transitional services may negate the progress of juveniles who are returned from custodial settings (Stephens & Arnette, 2000). Briscoe and Doyle (1996) offer the following as a recommendation for students transitioning: 50 Successful reentry into school, employment and the community when youth are released from residential programs is a multidimensional process. To be effective and long lasting, transitional services must focus on the critical elements of education, mental health, vocational education and training in social and community functional skills, as well as the residential care component. After-care cannot be thought of as purely a juvenile justice process. Coordination among service programs will allow better planning for service delivery and evaluation. It requires agencies to design and deliver services that are developmental, rather than fragmented and crisis oriented. Communication and coordination between residential programs and youths? aftercare services should begin at the entry into the residential program and continue until they have successfully completed the aftercare program. (p. 4) The ultimate goal of information sharing is to increase the probability that he or she will successfully exit the juvenile justice system, avoid future encounters with the system, and complete school and/or secure gainful employment (Stephens & Arnette, 2000). Barriers to Reentry ?Research has shown that one of the most important factors in preventing youthful offenders from recommitting crimes after their release is successful reintegration into the community through education, job training and employment? (Lawrence, 2003, p. 338). Juveniles who have high academic achievement and high daily attendance generally have a strong attachment to school; juveniles with a strong attachment to school are likely to return to school and stay away from delinquent behavior, and consequently are less likely to be arrested. Promoting academic adjustment and school achievement is 51 an effective approach for reducing risks for antisocial behavior (Howell, 2003). Interventions aimed at promoting school functioning need to address low academic performance, weak bonds to school, low educational aspirations, low school motivation and truancy (Howell, 2003). The single credential that demonstrates success is a high school diploma (Keely, 2006). Unfortunately, according to Keely, most youth exiting the juvenile justice system will not have earned a diploma upon release, and even fewer will do so after release. Years of poor educational performance and failure, discipline issues, community and family hindrances, being over the compulsory age, adjudication stigmatization, and other crimogenic variables become barriers to continuing their education (Keely, 2006). Coffey (1974) stated: Unlike the juvenile on probation . . . the delinquent who is released on parole from an institution has a delinquent identity. Whether this identity is perceived as a status symbol or a stigma, it poses the greatest challenge to treatment and rehabilitation. The delinquent, usually isolated from outside influences for several months, emerges from the institution with a label and a sense of alienation. Both of these may be a source of pride to him, but nevertheless, they are a significant barrier to his rehabilitation and reintegration with the community. (p. 133) Additionally, another obstacle occurs when the juvenile justice system returns formerly incarcerated students to the public school system with courses well underway (Balfanz, Spiridakis, Neild, Legters, 2003). Students reentering school, following removal from school due to placement at a residential or secure facility, experience a 52 great deal of difficulty and are at risk of school failure; they are often behind academically as a result of missing months or years of schooling or are sent to alternative programs that do not match their educational goals (Balfanz, et. al., 2003; Wald & Losen, 2003). It is extremely difficult for any student to enter classes during the middle of a semester and to succeed academically without prior exposure to the curriculum (Stephens & Arnette, 2000). In a study conducted by Baltodano, Platt and Roberts (2005), adjudicated youth transitioning back to school cited the amount of work missed as the most challenging hurdle. ?If we expect students who are frequently lagging academically to return to school successfully we need to address the reality that they will be met with a great deal of academic work that they are often unprepared to address? (Baltodano, Platt & Roberts, 2005, p. 385). ?Without substantial extra academic support to help them catch up on material already covered, their prospects of passing the course diminish? (Balfanz, et. al., 2003, p. 82). Balfanz, et al. (2003) found that students were characterized by academic distress and disengagement from schooling, the school year prior to confinement and upon their release, if it occurs during the normal school year. Keely (2006) further adds that ?their potential for completion and their futures is bleak. By the time most of them have received residential placement because of delinquency adjudication, they have already passed through the non-criminal classifications of truancy and status offending. At the point of delinquency, they either have arrived at or are on the way to dropping out of school, unemployment or underemployment? (p. 68). Balfanz, Spiridakis, Neild and Legters (2003) found that students who do graduate from high school after being 53 confined experience high levels of success prior to incarceration. Ideally, students who do not obtain a high school credential will re-enter their communities perhaps a better off because of some improved achievement ; however they will still be subject to those crimogenic evils, and some new ones, that interrupted their education and caused their juvenile justice disposition to residential placement (Keely, 2006). ?There is considerable agreement that prevention is preferable to rehabilitation. Unfortunately, no one seems to have discovered the magic formula for preventing delinquency? (Baker, 1991, p. 52). It is easier and less expensive to treat a few delinquent individuals than it is to attempt to change the social structure (Baker, 1991). ?The strength of the juvenile justice system lies in its ability to balance policies of prevention, rehabilitation, and punishment. History, suggests that reform based on any one of these policies is ineffective? (Jensen & Howard, 1998, p. 332). Efforts to improve juvenile delinquency will require changes in the juvenile?s environment: Delinquents will alter their antisocial behavior of their own volition if they can be shown that reform will bring a better life. Unfortunately, for many uneducated youths of the underclass, legitimate opportunities are not readily available. For them, crime holds the most [potential] for sharing in the material bounty of America . . . No amount of ?therapy? is going to overcome fourteen or fifteen years of the corrupting influence of family, friends, and environment. This influence began early in life, for some even dating back to inadequate prenatal nourishment or maternal drug or alcohol addiction. Showing concern for these troubled juveniles in their teenage years is at least a decade too late. Their 54 criminality is rooted in deeper social problems which society must address if crime is to be reduced. (Baker, 1991, p. 47) Since children do not choose the families into which they are born, the communities where they live, the schools they attend or many of the individual problems they face, such as mental illness, risk reduction of juvenile delinquency involves changing the conditions to which youth are exposed that negatively affect their chances for long-term success (Howell, 2003). Chapter Summary Juveniles live in a world different from that of their parents or grandparents (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). If fact, the problems that children experience today are the products of many, complex situations. This chapter centers on the complexities and distinguishing characteristics of delinquent youth. The theme of delinquency as a social issue is developed emphasizing the need for collaboration among youth and social agencies, such as schools and other community organizations. Hirschi?s theory of social bonds was shaped by control theory. There are similar concepts in both theories; however, Hirschi went a step further by specifying four elements of social control, which he maintained predicts delinquent behavior. Chapter III introduces the methodology for the study. 55 CHAPTER III: METHODS Introduction Stephens and Arnette (2000) estimate that six percent of school-age youth across the nation are processed through the juvenile justice system each year. Based on that estimate, there are approximately 60 adjudicated students in a high school with 1,000 students. Most delinquents are school-aged youth who have not completed educational requirements or graduated from high school. Delinquent youth who are placed in a custodial institution must withdraw from school and reenroll in school upon completion of treatment, if he/she has not graduated. When a delinquent returns to school his/her behavior and interpersonal relationships should be monitored (Stephens & Arnette, 2000). Whether or not juvenile treatment programs are an appropriate way to manage and treat juvenile delinquents as well as what impact such programs have on the behavior of juveniles while they are confined and upon their release are critical questions to answer (MacKenzie, Gover, Armstrong & Mitchell, 2001). Assessment of juveniles with common personality and behavior traits helps to target issues that need to be addressed and may prove useful in predicting who will recidivate (Hinmon, 2000). The purpose of this research was to determine the social characteristics and beliefs between delinquent and non-delinquent youth. The delinquent culture has 56 values that are opposed to the general culture (Cavan & Ferdinand, 1975). By understanding the attributes of the confined youth population and combining this knowledge with accurate population projections, juvenile correctional agencies can better evaluate their program needs and structure facilities and program to meet the needs of confined youth (Austin, Johnson & Weitzer, 2005). To address the paucity of research in the areas listed above, the following research questions were used in this study: ? What are the social characteristics and beliefs of delinquent youth as measured by the Youth Self-Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs? ? What are the social characteristics and beliefs of non-delinquent youth as measured by the Youth Self-Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs? ? Is there a statistically significant difference in the social characteristics and beliefs of delinquents and non-delinquents? ? Is there a statistically significant difference between delinquent and non- delinquent youth based on race or gender as measured by the Youth Self- Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs? ? What is the perceived impact of a High Intensive Treatment Program on its participants? 57 Design of the Study This study was designed to quantitatively assess the levels of social characteristics in delinquents and non-delinquents. In addition, qualitative measures were used to ascertain the impact of a High Intensive Treatment (HIT) program, as perceived by delinquent youth. The instrument was divided into three sections; the first two sections were identical for both groups of participants and the third section, which was qualitative, was specific for the delinquent youth. The SPSS statistical analysis program was used to analyze the quantitative data of the instrument. Instrument Development The instrument used in this study is a self-report questionnaire designed by the researcher. An advantage of self-reporting research is that it can focus on misbehaviors that are not delinquent, but may be precursors to later involvement in delinquency (Loeber, Farrington & Petechuk, 2003). The instrument was largely based on the elements of Travis Hirschi?s (1969) social bond theory to measure levels of social characteristics and beliefs. An ideal needs assessment for delinquent youth should include items about education, peer relationships, pro-social relationships with adults, employment/vocation preparation, aggressive behavior, emotional stability, pro-social attitudes, values and behaviors and participation in recreational/structured activities (Reconnecting, n.d.). Hirschi?s social bond theory includes four elements: attachment, commitment, involvement and belief. Attachment is a major deterrent to crime; the stronger this bond, the more likely the person is to take into account when and if a juvenile contemplates a criminal act (Hirschi, 1969). A lack of attachment to others and the absence of commitment to individual values lead to 58 association with delinquents (Hirschi, 1969). In Hirschi?s theory, attachment predicts commitment and commitment predicts involvement (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996). Belief is an internal constraint that decreases or increases the probability of antisocial behavior (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996). This bond represents adherence to a general belief that the rules of conventional society are binding (Longshore, Chang & Messina, 2005). It refers to the acceptance of a conventional value system (Shoemaker, 2005). Conventional activities such as attending school, doing homework, reading and having a hobby help to facilitate the integration into socially acceptable behavior (Angenent & de Man, 1996). Involvement refers to participation in a legitimate activity, such as extracurricular activities (Shoemaker, 2005). After developing a final draft of the questionnaire, Dr. John Stewart, Superintendent of the Alabama Department of Youth Services, reviewed the instrument. Dr. Stewart evaluated the initial version of the questionnaire and made recommendations regarding the format and content of each of the statements. The researcher revised the assessment based on Dr. Stewart?s remarks and an amended version of the assessment was submitted to Dr. Stewart and the Alabama Department Youth Services for review by its legal department. Upon approval from the legal department of Alabama Department of Youth Services, the final version of the Youth Self-Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs was complete. Participant Population The participant population consisted of two groups: delinquent and non- delinquent youth. Delinquent youth were chosen as participants based on their 59 attendance in a High Intensive Treatment program within the Alabama Department of Youth Services (DYS). Youth who had reached Level 4 status were invited to participate in the study. Youth with Level 4 status are those youth who are candidates for successfully completing the HIT program. Public School One school community within the Elmore County (Alabama) School District that included a junior high and high school served as the site for selecting non-delinquent participants. Participants in this study attend schools located in a suburban area in central Alabama. The schools serve students from the same community. The junior high school serves as a feeder school to the high school. Both schools have a racial composition of approximately 30% African-American and 70% Caucasian. Students from classes in grades seven and eight from the junior high school and grades nine through twelve in the high school in that area were recruited. The classes designated as part of this study were: English 7, Math 8, English 9, English 9, English 10, English 11 and English 12. These classes were chosen because they represent the general school population. Each of these classes is a regular core subject class, required of for students. One question on the assessment asked students were asked if they had ever been adjudicated to ensure participation of only non-delinquent youth. If a student responded ?yes? that questionnaire would not be included in the data for the study. Department of Youth Services? Facility The delinquent population was chosen from the Autauga Campus within the Alabama Department of Youth Services. This site was chosen because of its geographic 60 location in relation to the non-delinquent population. The Autauga High Intensive Treatment (HIT) is a 28-day program for adjudicated youth designed to provide early intervention as an alternative to long-term incarceration (Autauga, 2004). The specific goals and treatment objectives as outlined in the facility?s student handbook focus on improving students? self-esteem, prosocial behavior, academic skills, character traits and respect for authority (Autauga, 2004). While in the program, students abide by a structured regime (Autauga, 2004): ? Students wear uniforms based on their particular status or level. ? Students are only allowed one telephone call home, during their final week, in anticipation of their completion of the program. However, a letter may be written when he arrives to announce his safe arrival. ? Students must write two letters per week, for which stamps are provided, one to their probation officer and one to their parent(s)/legal guardian(s). ? Students attend school daily, except weekends and teacher holidays. ? Students participate in physical training. ? Enclosed in the student handbook is a complaint form that students, if they wish, can be filled out and submitted to an Advocacy Representative. The levels are designed to indicate the number of weeks a student has participated in the program. All students begin at Level One, and each level signifies progression in the program. Students are promoted to the next level based on a daily evaluation of 25 items. The items being evaluated, which are considered minor violations, include school behavior, respect for authority, letter writing, arguing/cursing and physical training. Staff 61 members evaluate the students, by responding yes or no to these 25 items; if the student has three no?s, then he loses the day. Level One students may lose 3 days; Level Two may lose two days; Level Three students may lose one day; and Level Four students may not lose any days. If the student loses more than the allowable amount of days, then he will have to repeat the week, which prolongs his stay in the program. Major violations which include fighting, possession of a weapon, assault, and attempting to escape could result in Time Out, a Loss of Level(s) or a Loss of Day. Students can also be assigned to another facility for a longer period of time. Only Level Four students were included in the study because these students are candidates for completing the program, indicating they have met the requirements and should be prepared to reenter their regular environment. Instrumentation The instrument used in this study had two forms which were designed to assess data specific to each population. Section One contained demographic information for both groups. The questionnaire given to adjudicated youth asked participants to provide information about their placement in the Department of Youth Services? facility. Section Two, which was the basic component both questionnaires, contained 42 statements to which participants could respond: (1) Never (2) Rarely (3) Sometimes (4) Often or (5) Always and was the same for both groups of participants. Adjudicated youth were also asked to complete a third section. This section contained open-ended questions to elicit responses related to their experiences in the HIT program and intentions for reentering school. 62 Reliability The instrument was designed to measure four constructs derived from Travis Hirschi?s theory of social bonds. The subscales for the instrument were: belief, attachment, commitment and involvement. The respective scores for reliability were: belief (.824); attachment (.762); commitment (.713) and involvement (.735). The following is a list of statements used to measure each construct. Beliefs ? At home, I do what is asked of me, like chores. ? I pray or meditate. ? A rule should not be broken, even if it doesn?t make sense. ? I follow rules, even if I don?t like them. ? I am able to control my temper, even if someone makes me mad. ? Everyone deserves respect. ? Hurting someone is wrong, even if he/she hurts me. ? I think before I act. ? I have a problem being around others who curse or use bad language. ? All teachers deserve respect. ? A fight can be avoided, even if someone else starts it. Commitment ? I consider myself to be well organized. ? Doing homework is helpful. ? In school I make A?s and B?s. 63 ? In school I try my best. ? I know what I want to do with my life. ? I would attend school, even if I didn?t have to attend. ? I would rather go to school, than hang out with friends. ? School is worth the effort. Involvement ? I am or have been involved in extra-curricular activities. ? I have participated in volunteer activities. ? In school I volunteer to answer questions during class. ? Attending church is very important to me. ? I have participated in church activities. ? I would enjoy taking family vacations. ? I am comfortable trying new things. Attachment ? I enjoy meeting new people. ? I care what happens to other people. ? I get along well with my parents. ? My teachers value my opinion. ? People would describe me as a good person. ? I enjoy being at school. ? I feel important. ? School is important to me. 64 ? I care what happens to me. ? People value my opinion. ? I care if I disappoint my parents. ? It is important for others to like me. Research Procedures and Data Collection The researcher met with the Superintendent of Education for the Alabama Department of Youth Services and the Assistant Superintendent of Elmore County Public Schools to describe the study?s purpose and methodology. Upon authorization to conduct the study in each school setting, the researcher submitted a Research Protocol Review Form to the Office of Human Subjects Research at Auburn University which was later approved by this office (see Appendix C). The researcher met with teachers at each facility to discuss the study?s objectives and to provide training for administering the assessment. Each teacher received a packet that included a cover letter, script for administering the assessment, minor assent/parent consent forms, assessment cover sheets and the Youth Self-Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs forms (see Appendices E and F). In the public school setting, each teacher reviewed and distributed minor assent/parent consent forms to each of his/her students. The teacher collected minor assent/parent consent for three days before administering the questionnaire to students and parents who agreed for students to participate. Adjudicated youth were administered the assessment on the Friday prior to the Monday of their graduation from the HIT program. The study was conducted every 65 Friday over a six-week period. Participants were students who were candidates for completing and graduating from the HIT program. The consent form was read aloud to the participants. Those students willing to participate signed the consent and were issued an assessment form. The assessment was read aloud to ensure that students understood each statement or item. The researcher provided pre-paid postage material for each location to return data. The lead teacher at the Department of Youth Services facility collected data from each teacher and mailed it back to the researcher. The counselor at each school in Elmore County collected data from each teacher and mailed it back to the researcher. Data Analysis Both quantitative and qualitative research methods were utilized. Section one of the instrument included demographic information for both groups of participants. However, background and demographic information differed slightly for the two groups. For example, adjudicated students were asked about their delinquent involvement. Section two was arranged with 42 statements that were identical for both groups of participants. As each set of data were returned, the researcher entered participant responses into the SPSS computer program. Additionally, participants from DYS were asked to complete an added third section about their experiences and intentions after having participated in a High intensive treatment program. These data were analyzed by the researcher and categorized into themes. 66 Summary Chapter III presents the overall design of the study, describes the population and provides details of the instrument and its development. The instrument was developed by the researcher to assess the social characteristics and beliefs of adjudicated youth as well as youth who have never been adjudicated by the juvenile justice system. The instrument was reviewed and evaluated by the superintendent and legal department of the Alabama Department of Youth Services. Reliability and validity measures of the instruments were also included in this chapter. One hundred ninety-five participants were included in this study. Chapter IV examines the statistical and analytical data. 67 CHAPTER IV FINDINGS According to Cavan and Ferdinand (1975), preventing delinquency is contingent upon the ability to identify the basic conditions in the social fabric that foster delinquent behavior. In an effort to determine if varying factors of social characteristics among delinquents and non-delinquents exist, the Youth Self-Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs was designed and served as the basis for this research study. The scale measured four categories based on Travis Hirschi?s social bond theory: beliefs, commitment, involvement and attachment. One hundred ninety-five students from two settings?a public school system (a junior high and high school) and an Alabama Department of Youth Services? facility participated in the study. The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a statistical difference between the social characteristics delinquent and non-delinquent youth. Additionally, questions were asked to explore the experiences and perceptions of adjudicated youth attending a high intensive treatment program. The research questions used in this study were as follows: ? What are the social characteristics and beliefs of delinquent youth as measured by the Youth Self-Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs? 68 ? What are the social characteristics and beliefs of non-delinquent youth as measured by the Youth Self-Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs? ? Is there a statistically significant difference in the social characteristics and beliefs of delinquent and non-delinquent youth? ? Is there a statistically significant difference between delinquent and non- delinquent youth based on race or gender as measured by the Youth Self- Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs? ? What is the perceived impact of a High Intensive Treatment Program on its participants? Quantitative Findings Quantitative data was generated from participants? responses to statements listed on the Youth Self-Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs. Participants responded Using a Likert-type scale ( 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often and 5=Always). Research Question 1 What are the social characteristics and beliefs of non-delinquent youth as measured by the Youth Self-Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs? One hundred seventeen youth from the public school setting completed the Youth Self-Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs. Of the participants, 65% identified themselves as White or Caucasian, 28% as Black or African-American, 5.1% as Asian or biracial and 1.7% as Hispanic. The grade distributions among participants were: as follows: Grade 7?8, Grade 8?16, Grade 9?31, Grade 10?27, Grade 11?12 and Grade 12?23. Table 1 discloses the age level of public school participants. 69 Table 1 Age of Non-Delinquent Students Age n Percent 12 1 .9 13 13 11.1 14 20 17.1 15 26 22.2 16 24 20.5 17 12 10.3 18 17 14.5 19 4 3.4 N 117 100 The data for Beliefs are represented in Table 2. The items with the highest mean are Item 1 and Item 24. For the most part, public school students do what is asked of them. They also tend to believe that everyone deserves respect. On the other hand, the lowest mean for these data is the statement related to cursing. With a mean of 2.79, it seems that public school students do not have a problem with others who curse. 70 Table 2 Beliefs of Non-Delinquent Students Statement n Mean SD 1. At home, I do what is asked of me, like chores. 117 4.07 .79 4. I pray or meditate. 117 3.57 1.31 9. A rule should not be broken, even if it doesn?t make sense. 117 3.45 1.02 11. I follow rules, even if I don?t like them. 117 3.74 .82 18. I am able to control my temper, even if someone makes me mad. 117 3.56 1.00 24. Everyone deserves respect. 117 4.42 .83 26. Hurting someone is wrong, even if he/she hurts me. 117 3.69 1.33 27. I think before I act. 117 3.44 .91 29. I have a problem being around others who curse or use bad language. 117 2.79 1.32 33. All teachers deserve respect. 117 4.16 .92 36. A fight can be avoided, even if someone else starts it. 117 3.25 1.28 Legend: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always The data for the level of Commitment exhibited by students attending public schools are revealed in Table 3. In six out of eight items, public school students exhibit a strong level of commitment. However, the two statements with the lowest mean related 71 to their allegiance to school, statements 28 and 31, suggested that most students would rather spend time with friends, but attend school because it is mandatory. Table 3 Commitment of Non-Delinquent Students Statement n Mean SD 3. I consider myself to be well organized. 117 3.40 1.02 5. Doing homework is helpful. 117 3.62 1.08 10. In school, I make A?s and B?s. 117 3.74 1.16 14. In school, I try my best. 117 4.13 .89 21. I know what I want to do with my life. 117 4.17 .99 28. I would attend school, even if I didn?t have to attend. 117 2.79 2.15 31. I would rather go to school, than hang out with friends. 117 2.22 1.18 41. School is worth the effort. 117 4.11 .98 Legend: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always The data for Involvement of non-delinquent students is outlined in Table 4. From the data presented, it can be concluded that public school students, overall, are involved in activities outside of the classroom. 72 Table 4 Involvement of Non-Delinquent Students Statement n Mean SD 12. I am or have been involved in extra-curricular activities. 117 3.72 1.74 22. I have participated in volunteer activities. 117 3.20 1.21 23. In school, I volunteer to answer questions during class. 117 3.33 1.15 25. Attending church is very important to me. 117 3.92 1.35 30. I have participated in church activities. 117 3.52 1.39 40. I would enjoy taking family vacations. 117 4.32 .93 42. I am comfortable trying new things. 117 4.08 .95 Legend: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always Non-delinquent students? level of Attachment is represented in Table 4. Overall, public school students seem to display a high level of attachment as the means for seven out of the twelve items corresponded with the choice ?often.? Table 5 Attachment of Non-Delinquent Students Statement n Mean SD 2. I enjoy meeting new people. 117 4.10 .99 6. I care what happens to other people. 117 4.22 .84 (table continues) 73 Table 5 (continued) Statement n Mean SD 7. I get along well with my parents. 117 3.92 .91 13. My teachers value my opinion. 117 3.24 1.08 15. People would describe me as a good person. 117 4.30 .77 16. I enjoy being at school. 117 3.05 1.23 17. I feel important. 117 3.64 .96 19. School is important to me. 117 4.05 3.94 20. I care what happens to me. 117 4.59 .87 32. People value my opinion. 117 3.48 .88 34. I care if I disappoint my parents. 117 4.38 .87 38. It is important for others to like me. 117 3.25 1.28 Legend: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always Research Question 2 What are the social characteristics and beliefs of delinquent youth as measured by the Youth Self-Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs? Seventy-eight students from the Department Youth Services and 117 public school students participated. Of the participants from DYS, 75.6% recorded their ethnicity as Black or African-American, 20.5% as White or Caucasian, 2.6% as Hispanic and 1.3% as Bi-racial or Asian. Table 6 depicts the ages of students participating in the HIT program who completed the assessment. The highest number of participants were 16-years old with one 11-year old and one 12-year old. 74 Table 6 Ages of Delinquent Students Age N Percent 11 1 1.3 12 1 1.3 13 4 5.2 14 12 15.6 15 15 19.5 16 27 35.1 17 13 16.9 18 4 5.2 Students attending the High Intensive Treatment (HIT) program are placed there for a variety of non-violent offenses, such as Child in Need of Supervision (CHINS). Violation of probation is the most prevalent reason for placement in the HIT program. 75 Figure 2 Reasons for Adjudcation Drugs 24% Truancy 4% Disorderly Conduct 17% CHINS/ Probabtion Violation 27% Weapons 13% Burglary/Theft 15% Drugs Truancy Burglary/Theft Disorderly Conduct Weapons CHINS/Probabtion Violation The HIT program is designed to be a four week program. The average length of stay for most youth was four weeks. Table 7 Length of Stay for Delinquent Students Number of Weeks N Four 54 Five 13 Six 5 Seven Weeks 6 Students at the DYS facility seemed to hold moderate to high beliefs as indicated by Table 8. The lowest ranked statement, I have a problem being around others who curse or use bad language, with a mean of 2.15 signifies that adjudicated youth rarely have a problem being around others who curse. 76 Table 8 Beliefs of Delinquent Students Statement n Mean SD 1. At home, I do what is asked of me, like chores. 78 3.77 .99 4. I pray or meditate. 78 3.86 1.08 9. A rule should not be broken, even if it doesn?t make sense. 78 3.76 1.23 11. I follow rules, even if I don?t like them. 78 3.45 1.11 18. I am able to control my temper, even if someone makes me mad. 78 3.14 1.23 24. Everyone deserves respect. 78 4.35 1.02 26. Hurting someone is wrong, even if he/she hurts me. 78 3.45 1.33 27. I think before I act. 78 3.17 1.06 29. I have a problem being around others who curse or use bad language. 78 2.15 1.15 33. All teachers deserve respect. 78 4.13 1.06 36. A fight can be avoided, even if someone else starts it. 78 3.46 1.48 Legend: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always From the data in Table 9, it can be concluded that adjudicated youth are generally committed to school and their own personal goals. Even though a large number of 77 adjudicated youth recognize school as being worth the effort, fewer would attend school if it was not mandatory and would rather spend a day with friends. Table 9 Commitment of Delinquent Students Statement n Mean SD 3. I consider myself to be well organized. 78 3.97 1.15 5. Doing homework is helpful. 78 3.47 1.27 10. In school, I make A?s and B?s 78 2.91 1.06 14. In school, I try my best. 78 3.85 1.03 21. I know what I want to do with my life. 78 4.35 1.03 28. I would attend school, even if I didn?t have to attend. 78 3.05 1.48 31. I would rather go to school, than hang out with friends. 78 2.92 1.16 41. School is worth the effort 78 4.14 1.09 Legend: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always A generalization from Table 10 is that adjudicated youth have a desire to become involved in various activities. However with mean scores of 2.85 and 2.99, the lowest rated items pertaining to volunteerism indicate that adjudicated youth are reluctant to volunteer in class or for other activities. 78 Table 10 Involvement of Delinquent Students Legend: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always Attachment levels experienced by students attending the HIT program appear to be strong, according to the data in Table 11. The average response for 11 out of 12 items was ?sometimes,? ?often,? or ?always?. The statement receiving the lowest mean was ?It is important for others to like me? with a mean of 2.76, which suggests students have little concern for the opinion of others. However, students do have great concern for themselves, as the overall response to the statement, ?I care what happens to me? obtained a mean of 4.65, which was the highest mean in this category. These high responses could be attributed to the type of activities students in the HIT program are required to participate. Statement n Mean SD 12. I am or have been involved in extra-curricular activities. 78 3.62 1.36 22. I have participated in volunteer activities. 78 2.85 1.20 23. In school, I volunteer to answer questions during class. 78 2.99 1.28 25. Attending church is very important to me. 78 4.10 1.14 30. I have participated in church activities. 78 3.29 1.24 40. I would enjoy taking family vacations. 78 4.42 1.09 42. I am comfortable trying new things. 78 3.97 1.06 79 Table 11 Attachment of Delinquent Students Legend: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always Research Question 3 Is there a statistically significant difference in the social characteristics and beliefs of delinquent and non-delinquent youth? A multivariate analysis of variance was conducted in order to determine if any differences exist between the two groups of participants?delinquents and non- delinquents. Four measures were used to assess the levels of social characteristics: Beliefs, Commitment, Involvement and Attachment. Statistically significant differences Statement n Mean SD 2. I enjoy meeting new people. 78 3.54 1.08 6. I care what happens to other people. 78 3.91 1.00 7. I get along well with my parents. 78 4.29 1.01 13. My teachers value my opinion. 78 3.15 1.19 15. People would describe me as a good person. 78 3.82 .98 16. I enjoy being at school. 78 3.54 1.21 17. I feel important. 78 4.08 1.00 19. School is important to me. 78 3.94 1.17 20. I care what happens to me. 78 4.65 .84 32. People value my opinion. 78 3.28 1.04 34. I care if I disappoint my parents. 78 4.42 1.03 38. It is important for others to like me. 78 2.76 1.33 80 were found in each of the categories as indicated by Wilks? Lamda. Levels of significance were reported for Beliefs at .001 with a Wilks? Lambda value of .024 (F=688.23), Commitment at .000 with a Wilks? Lamda value of .027 (F=844.01), Involvement at .042 with a Wilks? Lambda value of .028 (F=936.22) and Attachment at .000 with a Wilks? Lamda value of .017 (F=985.06). Beliefs Delinquent and non-delinquent youth differed in regards to chores, following rules, controlling temper and cursing. Responses to the statement, At home, I do what is asked of me, like chores was significant at the .020 level. The mean for DYS students was 3.77 and for PS students was 4.07. There was also a significant difference in the way in which students follow rules. Both groups of students indicated that they ?sometimes? follow rules, even if they don?t like them, but PS students had a significantly higher mean at 3.74 than PS students with a mean of 3.45. Responses to the statement, I am able to control my temper, even if someone makes me mad were significant at the .009. Public school students stated that they are more apt to control their temper with mean response of 3.56, while DYS students are less likely to control their tempers if someone makes them mad with a mean response of 3.14. Although both groups seemed to have a minimal problem with others who curse, there was a significant difference in the level of acceptance with .001 as the level of significance between the two groups. Public school students had a mean of 2.79 and DYS students had a mean of 2.15. DYS students have slightly less of a problem being around others who curse. 81 Commitment In the Commitment category, four significant differences were observed. Based on the data collected, DYS students are more organized than PS students. DYS students had a mean of 3.97 and PS students 3.40 with a level of significance of .000. A?s and B?s .000, Try Best .043 and Hang Out .000 Involvement There were two significant differences reported in the category of Involvement. DYS students were less likely to volunteer (M = 2.85) than PS students (M = 3.20). The difference between the two items was .047 with an adjusted R square of 0.15. Another discrepancy exists between the willingness of students to volunteer to answer questions in class. DYS students are more reluctant to answer questions during class with a mean of 2.99, whereas PS students had a mean of 3.33. This variance was significant at .050 with an adjusted R square of .000. Attachment The category with the most significant factors was Attachment. Both delinquent and non-delinquent students enjoy meeting new people, although the difference was statistically significant. The level of significance between the two groups was .000 with an adjusted R square of .064. Responses to the statement ?I care what happens to other people? resulted in a mean 4.22 from PS students and a mean of 3.91 from DYS students. These data produced a significance of .020 with an adjusted R squared value of .023. A .008 level of significance and an adjusted R square .031 was reported between the two groups? responses concerning their relationship with their parents. Based on the data, delinquent youth reported a better relationship with their parents with mean at 4.29 than 82 non-delinquent youth students with a mean of 3.92. Delinquents said that people were less likely to describe them as a good person as compared to non-delinquents. The mean for delinquents was 3.82 and 4.30 for non-delinquents, significant at .000 with an adjusted squared value of .065. From data report, delinquents with a mean of 3.54 enjoy being at school as compared to non-delinquents with a mean of 3.05, which is significant at the level of .007. When students were asked whether they feel important, delinquents responded with a higher mean than non-delinquents (3.64 and 4.08, respectively) with a significance of .003. Research Question 4 Is there a statistically significant difference between delinquent and non- delinquent youth based on race or gender as measured by the Youth Self-Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs? A limitation associated with this study was the small population of non-delinquent African-American participants when compared to the high percentage of delinquent African-American participants. The delinquent youth who participated in this study attended an all-male HIT facility, which added another limitation to the study. To address these limitations an analysis of the social characteristics of the following sub- groups was conducted: African-American delinquents to African-American non- delinquents, delinquent males to non-delinquent males and African-American delinquent males to African-American non-delinquent males. 83 Table 12 Beliefs of African American Delinquents and African-American Non-Delinquents Statement n PS (SD) DYS (SD) 1. At home, I do what is asked of me, like chores. 92 4.06 (.86) 3.71 (1.02) 9. A rule should not be broken, even if it doesn?t make sense. 92 3.79 (1.02) 3.29 (1.23) 11. I follow rules, even if I don?t like them. 92 3.76 (.90) 3.42 (1.13) 18. I am able to control my temper, even if someone makes me mad. 92 3.48 (1.15) 3.00 (1.22) 24. Everyone deserves respect. 92 4.67 (.65) 4.25 (1.09) 26. Hurting someone is wrong, even if he/she hurts me. 92 3.61 (1.09) 3.27 (1.28) 27. I think before I act. 92 3.58 (.66) 3.07 (1.42) 29. I have a problem being around others who curse or use bad language. 92 2.73 (1.23) 2.22 (1.16) 33. All teachers deserve respect. 92 4.33 (.82) 4.07 (1.13) 36. A fight can be avoided, even if someone else starts it. 92 3.73 (1.07) 3.39 (1.50) Legend: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always 84 Table 13 Commitment of African-American Delinquents and African-American Non-delinquents Statement N PS DYS 3. I consider myself to be well organized. 92 3.48 (.91) 4.10 (1.10) 5. Doing homework is helpful. 92 3.91 (.95) 3.53 (1.21) 10. In school, I make A?s and B?s 92 3.24 (1.00) 2.78 (.98) 14. In school, I try my best. 92 4.30 (.77) 3.78 (.97) 21. I know what I want to do with my life. 92 4.45 (.71) 4.42 (1.03) 28. I would attend school, even if I didn?t have to attend. 92 3.27 (1.26) 3.02 (1.42) 31. I would rather go to school, than hang out with friends. 92 2.76 (1.28) 3.00 (1.15) 41. School is worth the effort 92 4.39 (.83) 4.07 (1.13) Legend: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always 85 Table 14 Involvement of African-American Delinquents and African-American Non-delinquents Statement N PS (SD) DYS (SD) 12. I am or have been involved in extra-curricular activities. 92 3.52 (1.44) 3.56 (1.34) 22. I have participated in volunteer activities. 92 3.24 (1.2) 2.78 (1.19) 23. In school, I volunteer to answer questions during class. 92 3.73 (1.04) 2.97 (1.25) 25. Attending church is very important to me. 92 4.30 (.92) 4.00 (1.22) 30. I have participated in church activities. 92 3.61 (1.22) 3.20 (1.27) 40. I would enjoy taking family vacations. 92 4.36 (.90) 4.44 (1.00) 42. I am comfortable trying new things. 92 4.36 (.82) 4.00 (1.07) Legend: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always 86 Table 15 Attachment of African-American Delinquents and African-American Non-Delinquents Statement n PS (SD) DYS (SD) 2. I enjoy meeting new people. 92 4.12 (.906) 3.46 (1.12) 6. I care what happens to other people. 92 3.94 (1.06) 3.78 (1.07) 7. I get along well with my parents. 92 4.00 (1.00) 4.36 (1.00) 13. My teachers value my opinion. 92 3.39 (1.00) 3.03 (1.16) 15. People would describe me as a good person. 92 4.45 (.67) 3.73 (1.00) 16. I enjoy being at school. 92 3.21 (1.27) 3.54 (1.16) 17. I feel important. 92 4.15 (.87) 4.08 (1.02) 19. School is important to me. 92 4.30 (.98) 3.90 (1.17) (table continues) 87 Table 15 (continued) Statement n PS (SD) DYS (SD) 20. I care what happens to me. 92 4.76 (.79) 4.66 (.90) 32. People value my opinion. 92 3.70 (.95) 3.22 (1.10) 34. I care if I disappoint my parents. 92 4.24 (.97) 4.39 (1.10) 38. It is important for others to like me. 92 2.61 (1.06) 2.71 (1.34) Legend: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always Statistically significant differences were observed in all four measures of the Youth Self-Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs. Reports of Wilks? Lamda for each measure were: Beliefs .024 (F=301.70, p=.000), Commitment .019 (F=.019, p=.000), Involvement .022 (F=533.98, p=.000) and Attachment .015 (F=533.90, p=.000). When comparing African-American delinquents to African-American non-delinquents, responses to eight statements within the four categories were found to be statistically significant. Non-delinquent students indicated that they enjoy meeting new people with a mean of 4.12, whereas delinquent students responded with a mean of 3.46 (p=.004). Fewer delinquents stated that someone else could describe them as good people, making a statically significant difference at the .000 level. Fewer African-American delinquents also felt that people valued their opinion with a mean of 3.22 and African-American non- 88 delinquents had a mean of 3.70 (p =.039). Other statements in which statistically significant differences were observed were: I think before I act; In school, I volunteer to answer questions during class; In school, I make A?s and B?s; In school I try my best. A limitation to this study presented in the first chapter is the delinquent population used in this study only included males. To address the effects of this limitation, a comparison of delinquent males and non-delinquent males was conducted. Tables 16 through 19 display the data for non-delinquent males from the public school population and delinquent males from the Department of Youth Services. Table 16 Beliefs of Delinquent Males and Non-Delinquent Males Statement n PS (SD) DYS (SD) 1. At home, I do what is asked of me, like chores. 129 4.10 (.81) 3.77 (.99) 4. I pray or meditate. 129 3.49 (1.36) 3.86 (1.08) 9. A rule should not be broken, even if it doesn?t make sense. 129 3.37 (1.11) 3.36 (1.23) 11. I follow rules, even if I don?t like them. 129 3.80 (.83) 3.45 (1.11) 18. I am able to control my temper, even if someone makes me mad. 129 3.96 (1.07) 3.14 (1.24) 24. Everyone deserves respect. 129 4.35 (.89) 4.35 (1.02) (table continues) 89 Table 16 (continued) Statement n PS (SD) DYS (SD) 26. Hurting someone is wrong, even if he/she hurts me. 129 3.61 (1.17) 3.45 (1.33) 27. I think before I act. 129 3.51 (1.03) 3.17 (1.06) 33. All teachers deserve respect. 129 4.14 (.92) 4.13 (1.03) 36. A fight can be avoided, even if someone else starts it. 129 3.61 (1.17) 3.46 (1.47) Legend: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always Table 17 Commitment of Delinquent Males and Non-delinquent Males Statement n PS (SD) DYS (SD) 3. I consider myself to be well organized. 129 3.33 (1.11) 3.97 (1.15) 5. Doing homework is helpful. 129 3.51 (1.79) 3.47 (1.27) 10. In school, I make A?s and B?s 129 3.37 (1.20) 2.91 (1.06) (table continues) 90 Table 17 (continued) Statement n PS (SD) DYS (SD) 21. I know what I want to do with my life. 129 4.22 (.90) 4.35 (1.03) 28. I would attend school, even if I didn?t have to attend. 129 3.14 (1.37) 3.05 (1.48) 31. I would rather go to school, than hang out with friends. 129 2.14 (1.15) 2.92 (1.16) 41. School is worth the effort 129 4.00 (1.10) 4.14 (1.09) Legend: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always Table 18 Involvement of Delinquent Males and Non-Delinquent Males Statement N PS (SD) DYS (SD) 12. I am or have been involved in extra-curricular activities. 129 3.88 (1.45) 3.62 (1.36) 22. I have participated in volunteer activities. 129 3.02 (1.23) 2.85 (1.20) (table continues) 91 Table 18 (continued) Statement N PS (SD) DYS (SD) 25. Attending church is very important to me. 129 4.00 (1.31) 4.10 (1.13) 30. I have participated in church activities. 129 3.53 (1.41) 3.29 (1.24) 40. I would enjoy taking family vacations. 129 4.41 (.85) 4.42 (1.04) 42. I am comfortable trying new things. 129 4.36 (.82) 4.00 (1.07) Legend: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always Table 19 Attachment of Delinquent Males and Non-Delinquent Males Statement N PS (SD) DYS (SD) 2. I enjoy meeting new people. 129 4.10 (.81) 3.77 (.99) 6. I care what happens to other people. 129 4.18 (.84) 3.91 (1.00) (table continues) 92 Table 19 (continued) Statement N PS (SD) DYS (SD) 7. I get along well with my parents. 129 4.24 (.86) 4.29 (1.00) 13. My teachers value my opinion. 129 3.14 (1.2) 3.15 (1.19) 15. People would describe me as a good person. 129 4.29 (.81) 3.82 (.98) 16. I enjoy being at school. 129 3.04 (1.23) 3.54 (1.21) 17. I feel important. 129 3.69 (1.01) 4.08 (1.00) 19. School is important to me. 129 3.90 (1.32) 3.94 (1.17) 20. I care what happens to me. 129 4.53 (.88) 4.65 (.84) 32. People value my opinion. 129 3.59 (.92) 3.28 (1.04) 34. I care if I disappoint my parents. 129 4.27 (.96) 4.42 (1.03) (table continues) 93 Table 19 (continued) Statement N PS (SD) DYS (SD) 38. It is important for others to like me. 129 3.45 (1.19) 2.76 (1.33) Legend: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always Statistically significant differences were observed when comparing delinquent males and non-delinquent males in three of the four categories: Beliefs with a Wilks? Lambda of .027 (F=385.82, p=.000), Attachment with a Wilks? Lambda of .018 (F=632.38, p=.000), and Commitment with a Wilks? Lambda of .029 (F=498.16, p=.000). Responses to each of the following statements revealed differences between delinquent males and non-delinquent males with the mean of the non-delinquent population being higher than the mean of delinquent population: I am able to control my temper, even if someone else makes me mad; I have a problem being around others who curse or use bad language; I enjoy meeting new people; People would describe me as a good person; and In school I make A?s and B?s. However, in four items with statistically significant differences, the mean for delinquent students was higher than the mean for non- delinquent students. Delinquent male students said that they enjoyed being at school with a mean of 3.54, whereas non-delinquent male students had a mean of 3.04 (p=.027). In another statement, I feel important, delinquent male students had a higher mean of 4.08 compared to the mean of non-delinquent students at 3.69. The mean for the following statements: I consider myself to be well organized; I would rather go to school, than hang out with friends also were less for non-delinquent male students than delinquent students. 94 Table 20 Beliefs of African-American Delinquent Males and African-American Non-delinquent Males Statement N PS (SD) DYS (SD) 1. At home, I do what is asked of me, like chores. 78 4.19 (.98) 3.71 (1.02) 4. I pray or meditate. 78 3.44 (1.37) 3.73 (1.10) 9. A rule should not be broken, even if it doesn?t make sense. 78 3.94 (1.12) 3.29 (1.29) 11. I follow rules, even if I don?t like them. 78 4.06 (.85) 3.42 (1.13) 18. I am able to control my temper, even if someone makes me mad. 78 3.75 (1.29) 3.00 (1.22) 24. Everyone deserves respect. 78 4.56 (.81) 4.25 (1.09) 26. Hurting someone is wrong, even if he/she hurts me. 78 3.50 (1.32) 3.27 (1.28) 27. I think before I act. 78 3.88 (.72) 3.07 (1.42) 29. I have a problem being around others who curse or use bad language. 78 2.63 (1.36) 2.22 (1.16) 33. All teachers deserve respect. 78 4.37 (.81) 4.07 (1.13) 36. A fight can be avoided, even if someone else starts it. 78 3.50 (1.10) 3.39 (1.50) Legend: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always 95 Table 21 Commitment of African-American Delinquent Males and African-American-Non- delinquent Males Statement n PS (SD) DYS (SD) 3. I consider myself to be well organized. 78 3.69 (1.01) 4.10 (1.11) 5. Doing homework is helpful. 78 3.94 (1.00) 3.53 (1.21) 10. In school, I make A?s and B?s 78 3.00 (1.16) 2.78 (.98) 14. In school, I try my best. 78 4.25 (.78) 3.78 (.97) 21. I know what I want to do with my life. 78 4.56 (.51) 4.42 (1.04) 28. I would attend school, even if I didn?t have to attend. 78 3.00 (1.03) 3.02 (1.42) 31. I would rather go to school, than hang out with friends. 78 2.50 (1.32) 3.00 (1.15 41. School is worth the effort 78 4.31 (.95) 4.07 (1.13) Legend: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always 96 Table 22 Involvement of African-American Delinquent Males and African-American Non- delinquent Males Statement N PS (SD) DYS (SD) 12. I am or have been involved in extra-curricular activities. 78 4.00 (1.32) 3.56 (1.34) 22. I have participated in volunteer activities. 78 3.06 (1.18) 2.78 (1.19) 23. In school, I volunteer to answer questions during class. 78 3.69 (1.01) 2.97 (1.25) 25. Attending church is very important to me. 78 4.31 (.95) 4.00 (1.22) 30. I have participated in church activities. 78 3.37 (1.31) 3.20 (1.27) 40. I would enjoy taking family vacations. 78 4.38 (.81) 4.44 (1.00) 42. I am comfortable trying new things. 78 4.31 (.87) 4.00 (1.07) Legend: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always 97 Table 23 Attachment of African-American Delinquent Males and African-African Non-delinquent Males Statement N PS (SD) DYS (SD) 2. I enjoy meeting new people. 78 4.00 (.73) 3.46 (1.12) 6. I care what happens to other people. 78 3.88 (1.03) 3.78 (1.07 7. I get along well with my parents. 78 4.50 (.73) 4.36 (1.00) 13. My teachers value my opinion. 78 3.38 (1.15) 3.03 (1.16) 15. People would describe me as a good person. 78 4.50 (.63) 3.73 (1.00) 16. I enjoy being at school. 78 3.25 (1.24) 3.54 (1.16 17. I feel important. 78 4.31 (.79) 4.08 (1.02) 19. School is important to me. 78 4.31 (.95) 3.90 (1.17) (table continues) 98 Table 23 (continued) Statement N PS (SD) DYS (SD) 20. I care what happens to me. 78 4.88 (.34) 4.66 (.90) 32. People value my opinion. 78 3.94 (.85) 3.22 (1.10) 34. I care if I disappoint my parents. 78 4.25 (1.13) 4.39 (1.10) 38. It is important for others to like me. 78 3.06 (1.06) 2.71 (1.34) Legend: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always Tables 20, 21, 22 and 23 represent the findings of the measures of characteristics of African-American delinquent males and African-American non-delinquent males. In each of the categories data were found to be statistically significant. A Wilks? Lambda of .033 was reported for the Beliefs of African-American delinquent males and African- American non-delinquent males (F=159.39, p=.000). For the Commitment factor a Wilks? Lambda of.030 was reported with F=262.34 and p=.000. With Involvement a Wilks? Lambda of .033 was observed (F=280.29 and p= .000). Lastly, Attachment of African-American delinquent males and African-American non-delinquent males indicated a statistical significance with a Wilks? Lambda of .021 (F=222.06 and p=.000). Of all the comparisons made between the delinquent non-delinquent population, the analysis of African-American delinquent males and African-American non-delinquent 99 males had the fewest items or statements found to be statistically significant. Statistically significant data were observed for the following statements: I follow rules, even if I don?t like them (p=.040); I think before I act (p=.008); In school, I volunteer to answer questions during class (p=.038); and People would describe me as a good person (p=.009). In each of these statements, African-American non-delinquent male students yielded a higher mean than African-American delinquent male students Qualitative Findings Research Question 5 What is the perceived impact of a High Intensive Treatment program on its participants? A qualitative analysis was conducted to determine adjudicated juveniles? perceived impact of the HIT program. Adjudicated youth were asked three open-ended questions to find out their experiences. After analyzing participants? responses, the researcher concluded that most of the responses were interconnected. Question 1: Describe your experience in this program. One of the more noteworthy subjects discussed by participants was the physical training component of the program. For example, one respondent wrote, ?Climbing the tower was good? and another said that he was in ?better shape.? Additionally, students simply listed other items for this statement such as anger control, self-discipline, teamwork, maturity and self-respect for their exp. The researcher concluded these items were components of the program related to rehabilitation. 100 Instead of describing their experience in the program, a number of students wrote about their feelings toward the program and their own personal adjustments for successfully completing the program: ? ? I just don?t want to come back here.? ? ?Well when I first got here, I didn?t like it. But now I realize what I have to do to go home . . . but I won?t forget what this program has taught me.? ? ?It is tough once you [get] started [but] you will [get] use to it. It teaches you [self-discipline] and a lot of things that can help you on the outside.? ? ?The program is really difficult, you just got to do as you are told.? ? ?This program takes major effort and courage. The first couple of weeks were my hardest weeks. But now it is easy.? ? ?I didn?t really let this program get to me as it did everyone else because this program to me seems like their opinion about children or teens being [locked] up is that they are [dumb] and do not have any [manners] or self-respect, but I just made a bad [decision], even though I?ve been locked up more than once, my moma taught me better.? Many of these respondents did not elaborate about their reasoning for not wanting to participate in the program only their ways for persevering through the difficult phases of the program. Question 2: What impact has this program had on your life? From the comments students wrote it seems that the program helped the students make some realizations. One student said the program, ?Made me do a lot of thing about my life and family.? The absence of family had an effect on one student, stating the he was, ?Missing out on 101 everything I love? and another student who said, ?It has helped me realize how much my family means. And it has also helped me spiritually with the religious programs.? ?This program always keep me thinking and wondering. Also telling me not to come back. It is telling me to keep my head up and keep going in the right direction you don?t have to make a wrong decision always make the right choices. Oh, and to stay in school.? Question 3: What changes, if any, do you plan to make after completing this program? Seventy-two students responded saying they intended to make some type of change. The common theme for students replying to this question was educational and/or career oriented. One student said, ?I plan to get my GED, get a job [and] spend more time with my family.? One student planned to change, ?A lot, like get my GED, a job, spend more time with my family and play football for Auburn University.? ?Get back in school, maintain good grades and a job. Stay out of less trouble.? A second theme that emerged from this question was family. Some Students set a goal to improve relationships with family members. ?Well I plan to obey my mother [and] do what she tells me because I love her with all my heart. She sent me here to be a better person [and] I will be a better person [because] this program has really changed me [and] made me think about a whole lot of things,? is what one student wrote. There were other commentaries either too generic or too specific to categorize, but still seemed to capture the desire of those students to make changes. For example, one student said he would change, ?All my negative behaviors and all my negative friends that [influenced] me to do bad [things],? whereas another simply said that he would ?stop smoking weed.? In order to change, two students noted a change in attitude 102 with one saying, ?I want to change the way I think because change starts in the mind? and another affirmed, ?I plan to give 110% effort in everything that I do, especially school, sports and good behavior. I also plan to stay in shape physically with a daily/weekly workout regime (also to be prepared for 2006 football season).? Results from the qualitative analysis indicate, for the most part, adjudicated youth know what they want to do with their life. Thus, when asked what changes they planned, one student specifically described his intention, ?I will get a job to keep me occupied from all the bad things going on around me. From then, I will prosper in society and have a successful life.? Chapter Summary This chapter presented the social characteristics and beliefs as measured by the Youth Self-Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs. The results of this study indicated that there was a statistically significant difference in each of the sub-scales, thereby indicating that there is a statistically significant difference in the social characteristics and beliefs of adjudicated youth and their peers. Additional data was ascertained from adjudicated youth through qualitative measures. Overall, delinquent youth were impacted by their experiences of participating in the HIT program. Most juveniles indicated that they intended to make changes upon their release from the program. The following chapter presents a discussion of the findings, interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations for further research. 103 CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction The purpose of this research was to determine the social characteristics and beliefs of delinquent and non-delinquent youth. Although this study included students who have never been adjudicated, the focal point of the study was delinquent juveniles. In determining whether the social characteristics of delinquents and non-delinquents are similar, juvenile agencies may be able to determine the preparedness of adjudicated youth reentering the public school setting. Participants in this study included students from two settings?a public school district within the state of Alabama and a boot camp facility operated by the Alabama Department of Youth Services. The public school setting included selected classrooms and non-delinquent participants from grade 7 through grade 12. The delinquent youth were chosen as candidates for the study based upon their participation in a High Intensive Treatment (HIT) program. A total of 195 students participated in the study?117 Public School students and 78 Department of Youth Services? students. Each group of participants was given a version of the Youth Self-Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs appropriate to their location. Both versions of the 104 assessment included a section that asked background information and a section that contained 42-items to which participants were asked to rate responses. Delinquent youth were asked to complete a third section which contained three open-ended questions pertaining to the juvenile?s experience as a result of participating in the HIT program. The basic component of the assessment included a 42-item scale measuring social characteristics based on four constructs?Beliefs, Commitment, Attachment and Involvement. To obtain an analysis of the High Intensive Treatment program operated by the Alabama Department of Youth Services was the rationale for the last research question?What is the perceived impact of a High Intensive Treatment program? The research questions for this study were as follows: ? What are the social characteristics and beliefs of delinquent youth as measured by the Youth Self-Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs? ? What are the social characteristics and beliefs of non-delinquent youth as measured by the Youth Self-Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs? ? Is there a statistically significant difference in the social characteristics and beliefs of delinquents and non-delinquents? ? Is there a statistically significant difference between delinquent and non- delinquent youth based on race or gender as measured by the Youth Self- Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs? ? What is the perceived impact of a High Intensive Treatment program on its participants? 105 Discussion of Findings Overall, both delinquents and non-delinquents had moderate to high responses with the mean for most items correlating to the responses ?sometimes,? ?often,? and ?always.? Descriptive and frequency reports for each group of participants were reported in Chapter IV. A multivariate of analysis of variance was conducted to determine levels of significance. Levels of significance were observed in all four categories?Beliefs, Commitment, Involvement and Attachment. More specifically, sixteen out of the thirty- seven factors included in the study were found to be statistically significant. For example, non-delinquents were more likely to follow rules and control their temper than delinquents. There were several items in which delinquent youth scored higher than non- delinquent youth. Delinquent youth reported having a better relationship with their parents than non-delinquents. This discrepancy could be attributed to the fact that delinquent youth are required to maintain weekly communication with parents while they are confined. Delinquent youth also considered themselves to be more organized than non-delinquents. Qualitative analyses revealed that juveniles participating in the HIT program generally had a change in their mental thought processes. Although responses to the three open-ended questions were analogous, it was clear that juveniles had made thought- provoking realizations about completing the program and their intentions upon completion. Many respondents expressed a regret relating to past mistakes or a newfound devotion to family and educational and/or career goals. When asked about 106 their experiences in HIT, even the endurance of the program was regarded as a physical as well as psychological challenge. These findings were similar to the conclusions asserted by MacKenzie, Gover, Armstrong and Mitchell (2001) that there is an initial increase in the level of anxiety for youths in boot camps, but the levels of anxiety do not appear to be dysfunctional. ?Most youths found it hard to adjust to boot camp rules and discipline at first, but they viewed boot camp as a challenge and were proud to be making it through? (Bourque, Cronin, Pearson, Felker, Han & Hill, 1996, p. 62). Implications Although levels of significance were found in the four measures of the instrument, the fact that both groups recorded moderate to high responses suggests that social characteristics of delinquents and non-delinquents are comparable in a number of areas. Delinquent youth do have a desire to excel socially, as well as academically and behaviorally. However, as mentioned in the review of literature, other factors may ultimately decide their fate. For many confined youth, values learned in residential facilities are temporary. In order to maintain the newfound standard of living, a continuum of services must be provided. Successes experienced while in secure placement must also be experienced by juveniles once removed from these facilities. If aftercare is viewed as the most critical component of a youth?s disposition, then emphasis should be placed on improving the services being provided during this phase of the disposition. These efforts must encompass the whole child by involving the family, community and the local education agency. Students returning from custodial facilities 107 should be given emotional, social, behavior, and academic support to build upon the positive adjustments they are intending to make. A formal partnership and system of collaboration should be established between educational and juvenile justice agencies. One example of collaboration is a school with an on-site probation officer. Another example is developing a committee of the administrators of the juvenile court and local education agency. A formal method to identify those students along with an assessment of their needs will aid in addressing those students? needs. Many youth who are returning to the regular classroom environment will require special attention. Adjudicated youth are returning to classrooms unlike what they experienced while they were confined. The number of students in a classroom will be significantly higher, and the coursework may or may not be on an appropriate level. Training for individuals who will work with these youth is needed. Although juvenile justice officials are concerned with the disclosure of information, however educators will not know how to address the needs of students reentering the classroom setting. An analysis of the demographics of youth admitted in the Alabama Department of Youth Services revealed: that 86% of youth were committed for non-violent; 81% were males; and 62% were African-American. These data magnify the population of youth to target for deterrence and prevention efforts. Recommendations for Further Research This study had a number of limitations. Future studies that address those limitations would further add to the research in this field. 108 The principles underlying the mission and purpose of graduated sanction programs are ideal. However, most of the research regarding boot camp programs is inconclusive concerning the effectiveness of such programs (Flash, 2003; Krisberg, 2005; MacKenzie, Gover, Armstrong & Mitchell, 2001; Tyler, Darville & Stalnaker, 2001). It is difficult to establish the long-term success or failure of the programs. One reason is that the term success is relative to the individual. Also, juveniles age out of the juvenile justice system when they turn 18 and can no longer be tracked. A longitudinal study is warranted to determine overall effectiveness. Additionally, there is a range of juvenile justice programs from diversion to incarceration. A longitudinal study to settle on the most effective program would benefit juvenile justice officials with regard to overall costs and success. Boot camps for juveniles vary greatly in style and purpose, making it difficult to determine effectiveness (Tyler, Darville & Stalnaker, 2001). This research study focused on a 28-day HIT program. The state of Alabama also operates other HIT programs across the state, one of which is a 90-day program. The components of the programs are similar. Replicating this study will allow a comparison analysis determining if there is any significance among participants and the duration of the program. A study of youth participating in a 90-day program should focus on changes students have made while participating in the program by administering the assessment upon their entrance into the program and exit out of the program. Delinquent youth participating in this study were under the custody and care of the Department of Youth Services. The programs and activities in which they participate may be different from their normal environment. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude 109 that the responses given are accurate depictions of their social demeanor upon reentering the public school setting. A study that tracks students upon returning to the public school after a specific time period would give a more relevant insight. In addition, by tracking students, other methods of measuring social behaviors, such as teacher and/or parent evaluations, can be utilized. In combination with tracking of students, further research is needed to explore the components of aftercare. Aftercare is essential to the success of students returning to their school and home environments (Anderson, Dyson & Burns, 1999; Baker, 1991; Baltodano, Platt & Roberts, 2005; Coffey, 1974; MacKenzie, Wilson & Kider, 2004). Further research is needed to examine programmatic efforts beyond the boot camps as aftercare has been identified as the most important component (Hayeslip, 1996). Determining what variables make aftercare effectual in reducing recidivism is a question that needs to be answered. Can those same variables be transferred to existing programs eliminating the need for out-of ?home placement for juveniles? Seventy-five percent of the delinquent juveniles participating in the study were African-American. An investigation that focuses of the variables influencing overrepresentation of minorities may prove beneficial in reducing the disproportionate figures. Summary A purpose of this research was to compare the social characteristics and beliefs of delinquent and non-delinquent youth. Cavan and Ferdinand (1975) stated that the delinquent population has characteristics that differ from the general population. A MANOVA revealed that there is a difference in the social characteristics and beliefs of 110 delinquents and non-delinquents as assessed by the Youth Self-Assessment of Social Characteristics and Beliefs. However, a closer examination of delinquent youth through qualitative methods established that delinquent youth have aspirations and a desire to excel. 111 REFERENCES Alabama Juvenile Justice Act. Retrieved on August 3, 2006, from http://familycourt.alacourt.gov Agnew, R. (2003). The interactive effects of social control variables on delinquency. In Britt, C. & Gottfredson (Eds.), Control theories of crime and delinquency. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Alabama Department of Youth Services. Demographics. Retrieved on December 5, 2005 from www.dys.alabama.gov Anderson, C. (2004). Double jeopardy: The modern dilemma for juvenile justice. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 152, 1181-1219. Anderson, J. F., Dyson, L. & Burns, J. C. (1999). Boot camps: An intermediate sanction. Lanham: University Press of America. Angenent, H. & de Man, A. (1996). Background factors of juvenile delinquency. New York: Peter Lang. Armstrong, G. S. & MacKenzie, D. L. (2003) Boot camps. In M. D. McShane & F. D. Williams (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Juvenile Justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Austin, J., Johnson, K. D., & Weitzer. (2005). Alternatives to the secure detention and confinement of juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Autauga Campus Student Handbook. (2004). Alabama Department of Youth Services 112 Baker, F. (1991). Saving our kids. New York: Harper-Collins. Balfanz, R., Spiridakis, K. Neild, R. C. & Legters, N. (2003). High-poverty secondary schools and the juvenile justice system: How neither helps the other and how that could change. In J. Wald & D. J. Losen (Eds.), New Directions for Youth Development: Deconstructing the School-to-Prison Pipeline: Vol. 99. New directions for youth development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Baltodano, H. M., Platt, D. & Roberts, C. W. (2005). Transition from secure care to the community: Significant issues for youth detention. The Journal of Correctional Education, 56(4), 372-388. Barlow, H. D. & Ferdinand, T. N. (1992). Understanding delinquency. New York: Harper Collins. Black, S. (2005). Learning behind bars. American School Board Journal, September 2005. [Reprinted by National School Boards Associations]. Briscoe, R. V. & Doyle, J. P. (1996). Aftercare services in juvenile justice: Approaches for providing services for high-risk youth. Preventing School Failure, 40 (2), 73- 77. Britt, C. L. (2003). Self-control, group solidarity and crime: An integrated control theory. In C. L. Britt & M. R. Gottfredson, M. R. (Eds.), Control Theories of Crime and Delinquency. New Brunswick: Transaction Britt, C. L. & Gottfredson, M. R. (2003). Editors? Introducation. In C. L. Britt & M. R. Gottfredson, M. R. (Eds.), Control Theories of Crime and Delinquency. New Brunswick: Transaction. Caeti, T. J. & Fritsch, E. J. (2003). At-risk youth. In M. D. McShane & F. D. Williams 113 (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Juvenile Justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Catalano, R. F. & Hawkins, J. D. (1996). The social development model: A theory of antisocial behavior. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current theories. New York: Cambridge. Cavan, R. S., & Ferdinand, T. N. (1975). Juvenile delinquency (3 rd ed.). Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company. Coffey, A. (1974). Juvenile justice as a system: Law enforcement to rehabilitation. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Cowin, J. A., Parks, P., Williamson, K., Anderton, T. M., Mitchell, M. & Pope, N. D. (2005). Play by the rules: Alabama laws for youth. Birmingham, AL: Alabama Center for law and Civic Education. Coy, T. O. & Satterfield, C. E. (2005). Think exit at entry. The Journal of Correctional Education, 56 (2), 189-194. Davis, L. (2003). Juvenile probation. In M. D. McShane & F. D. Williams (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Juvenile Justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DeLisi, M. (2003). Delinquency. In M. D. McShane & F. D. Williams (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Juvenile Justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DeMatteo, D. & Marczyk, G. (2005). Risk factors, protective factors and the prevention of antisocial behavior among juveniles. In R. E. Redding, N. E. Seven Goldstein & K. Heilbrun (Eds.), Juvenile delinquency: Prevention, assessment and intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dolny, H. M. (2003). In M. D. McShane & F. D. Williams (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Juvenile Justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 114 Emler, N. & Reicher, S. (1995). Adolescence and delinquency: The collective management of reputation. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Felker, D. B. & Bourque, B. B. (1996). The development of boot camps in the juvenile system: Implementation of three demonstration programs. National Institute of Justice Report. Correctional Boot camps: A Touch Intermediate Sanction. Retrieved on July 6, 2004 from www.kci.org/publication/bootcamp. Ferro, J. (2003). Juvenile crime. New York: Facts of File. Flash, K. (2003). Treatment strategies for juvenile delinquency: Alternative solutions. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 20 (6), 509-528. Gebo, E. (2007). Family relations and juvenile violence. In Finley, L. L. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Juvenile Violence. Westport: Greenwood. Gordon, J. (2003). Aftercare. In M. D. McShane & F. D. Williams (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Juvenile Justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gottfredson, M. R. & Hirschi, T. (2003). Self-control and opportunity. In C. L. Britt & M. R. Gottfredson (Eds.), Control theories of crime and delinquency. New Brunswick. Gibbons, D. C. (1976). Delinquent behavior (2 nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Harcourt, B. (2006). Language of the gun: Youth, crime and public policy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Hayeslip, D. W. (1996). The future of boot camps. National Institute of Justice Report. Correctional Boot camps: A Touch Intermediate Sanction. Retrieved on July 6, 2004 from www.kci.org/publication/bootcamp. 115 Hinmon, T. B. (2000). Personality and recidivism among juvenile delinquents. (Doctoral Dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology Fresno, 2000). Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Berkely: University of California Press. Hirschi, T. & Gottfredson, M. R. (2003). Punishment of children from the perspective of control theory. In C. L. Britt & M. R. Gottfredson (Eds.), Control theories of crime and delinquency. New Brunswick. Howell, J. C. (2003). Preventing and reducing juvenile delinquency: A comprehensive framework. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Information Guide for parents and children (n.d.). The Juvenile Court of Tuscaloosa County. Jensen, J. M. & Howard, M. O. (1998). Youth crime, public policy, and practice in the juvenile justice system: Recent trends and needed reforms. Social Work, 43(4), 324-334. Juvenile court system: How underage violators are processed. (2004). Supreme Court Debates. Keely, J. H. (2006). Will adjudicated youth return to school after residential placement? The results of a predictive variable study. The Journal of Correctional Education, 57(1), 65-85. Kidron, Y. & Fleischman, S. (2006). Promoting adolescents? prosocial behavior. Educational Leadership, 63(7), 90-91. Krisberg, B. (2005). Juvenile justice: Redeeming our children. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 116 Lawrence, R. (2003). School violence. In M. D. McShane & F. D. Williams (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Juvenile Justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Linn, M. (2005, December 3). DYS programs under review. The Montgomery Advertiser, p. 3B. Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P. & Petechuk, D. (2003). Child delinquency: Early intervention and prevention. Child Delinquency Bulletin Series. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Longshore, D.,Chang, E., & Messina, N. (2005). Self-control and social bonds: A combined control perspective on juvenile offending. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21(4), 419-437. MacKenzie, D. L., Gover, A. R., Armstrong, G. S. & Mitchell, O. (2001). A national study comparing the environments of boot camps with traditional facilities for juvenile offenders. National Institute of Justice Research in Brief. August 2001. U. S. Department of Justice. MacKenzie, D. L. & Souryal, C. (2004). A ?Machiavellian? perspective on the development of boot camp prisons. In D. L. MacKenzie & G. S. Armstrong (Eds.), Correctional boot camps: Military basic training or a model for corrections. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. MacKenzie, D. L., Styve, G. J. & Gover, A. R. (2004). Performance-based standards for juvenile correction. In D. L. MacKenzie & G. S. Armstrong (Eds.), Correctional boot camps: Military basic training or a model for corrections. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 117 MacKenzie, D. L., Wilson, D. B., Armstrong, G. S., & Gover, A. P. (2004). The impact of boot camps and traditional institutions on juvenile residents. In D. L. MacKenzie & G. S. Armstrong (Eds.), Correctional boot camps: Military basic training or a model for corrections. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. MacKenzie, D. L. Wilson, D. B. & Kider, S. B. (2004). Effects of correctional boot camps on offending. In D. L. MacKenzie & G. S. Armstrong (Eds.), Correctional boot camps: Military basic training or a model for corrections. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Mankey, J. Baca, P, Rondenell, S., Webb, M. & McHugh, D. (2006). Guidelines for information sharing. OJJDP Report. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Mays, G. L. (2003). Status offenses. In M. D. McShane & F. D. Williams (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Juvenile Justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mazzotti, V. L. & Higgins, K. (2006). Public schools and the juvenile justice system: Facilitating relationships. Intervention in School Clinic, 41(5), 295-301. McAllister, D., Bottomley, A. K. & Liebling, A. (1992). From custody to community: Throughcare for young offenders. Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Company. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (n.d.) Juvenile justice system structure and process. Retrieved July 12, 2006 from http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/structure_process/case.html Patenaud, A. (2003). Diversion programs. In M. D. McShane & F. D. Williams (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Juvenile Justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 118 Reconnecting: The role of the juvenile court in reentry. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Redding, R. E., Sevin Goldstein, N. E. & Heilbrun, K. (2005). Juvenile delinquency: Past and present. In R. E. Redding, N. E. Seven Goldstein & K. Heilbrun (Eds.), Juvenile delinquency: Prevention, assessment and intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reiss, A. J. (1951). Delinquency as the failure of personal and social controls. American Sociological Review, 196-207. Roy-Stevens, C. (2004). Overcoming barriers to school reentry. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Scheideggar, A. R. (2003). Scared Straight. In M. D. McShane & F. D. Williams (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Juvenile Justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schram, P. (2003). Truancy. In M. D. McShane & F. D. Williams (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Juvenile Justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Shader, M. (2003). Risk factors for delinquency: An overview. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn?t, what?s promising. [A report to the US Congress] National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. 119 Shoemaker, D. (2005). Theories of Delinquency: An examination of explanations of delinquent behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sprague, J., Walker, H. M., Stieber, S., Simonsen B., Nishioka, V. & Wagner, L. (2001). Exploring the relationship between school discipline referrals and delinquency. Psychology in the Schools, 38(2), 197-206. Snyder, H. N. & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Stephens, R. D. & Arnette, J. L. (2000). From the courthouse to the schoolhouse: Making successful transitions. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Todis, B., Bullis, M., Waintrup, M. Schultz, R., D?Ambrosio, R. (2001). Overcoming the odds: Qualitative examination of resilience among formerly incarcerated adolescents. Exceptional Children, 68(1), 119-139. Thornberry, T. P., Huizinga, D. & Loeber, R. (2004). The causes and correlates studies: Findings and Policy Implications. Juvenile Justice, 9(1). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Tremblay, R. E. & LeMarquand, D. (2001). Individual risk and protective factors. In Loeber, R. & Farrington, D. P. (Eds.), Child delinquents: Development, intervention and service needs. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Tyler, J. Darville, R. & Stalnaker, K. (2001). Juvenile boot camps: A descriptive analysis 120 of program diversity and effectiveness. Social Science Journal, 38(3), 445-461. Wald, J. & Losen, D. J. (2003, Fall). Defining and redirecting a school-to-prison pipeline. In J. Wald & D. J. Losen (Eds.), New Directions for Youth Development: Deconstructing the School-to-Prison Pipeline: Vol. 99. New directions for youth development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Walker, H. M. Ramsey, E. & Gresham, F. M. (2004). Anti-social behavior in school: Evidence-based practices. Belmont: Thomson/Wadsworth. Walker, H. M. & Sprague, J. R. (1999). The path to school failure, delinquency and violence: Causal factors and some potential solutions. Intervention in School and Clinic, 35(2), 67-73. Wright, E. (2007). Social development model. In Finley, L. L. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of juvenile violence. Westport: Greenwood Yablonsky, L. (2000). Juvenile delinquency: Into the 21 st century. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Zatz, J. (1982). Historical Overview. In J. F. Handler & J. Zatz (Eds.), Neither angels, nor thieves: Studies in deinstitutionalization of status offenders. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press. 121 APPENDICES 122 APPENDIX A INSTITUTION PERMISSION LETTERS 123 124 125 APPENDIX B INFORMATION LETTERS 126 127 128 APPENDIX C INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD 129 130 APPENDIX D ADMINISTRATORS? SCRIPTS 131 132 133 134 135 APPENDIX E INSTRUMENT FOR NON-DELINQUENT YOUTH 136 137 138 139 APPENDIX F INSTRUMENT FOR DELINQUENT YOUTH 140 141 142 143