II (HUI a I | ,TORS AND THEIR USE IN uOSTER PLACEMENT OF BOYS: ‘-Y (MICHIGAN) JUVENILE COURT By Lloyd J. Campbell Henry B. Goldbaum Fame]? Jo Knh‘er DIAGNOSTIC FACTORS AND THEIR USE IN DIFFERENTIAL FOSTER PLXCEMENT OF BOYS: GENESEE COUNTY (M CHIGAN) JUVENILE COURT By Lloyd J. Campbell Henry B. Goldbaum Pamala Jo Kahler A PELOJECT REPORT Submitted to tie School of Social Work Michigat State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK June 1966 mun? .. “Mean State . University MSU LIBRARIES “—w— _ _..__l_—. V THEsur." RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drou to remove this checkout from your record. FINE§ wil] be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. ABSTRACT This study is an attempt, by three graduate students of social work, to determine the degree to which the Genesee County Juvenile Court has employed a diagnostic approach in reaching decisions to place boys in differential foster settings. Using a research design based upon the assumption that association of social and behavioral factors with type of placement could deter- mine the degree to which "diagnostic" reasoning had entered Court decisions, records of boys placed during 1965 in either of two open treatment institutions (Whaley Memorial Foundation and Boysfarm), and in individuaL foster homes within Genesee County, were studied in detail and statistically analyzed. Conclusions reached were that the Court used more of a legalistic than a diagnostic approach in arriving at decisions for placement. During the course of the Study the students came to doubt the efficacy of assumptions in their research design, but felt that the results were meaningful in explaining characteristics of boys differentially placed by tla Court. -1v- .illll *7 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are indebted to all of those persons who facilitated the performance of this study. Dr. Gwen Andrew, our Research.pro- fessor, not only helped with pertinent comments throughout the course of our research, but also gave of her time "beyond the call of duty," and provided much encouragement and support. We are thankful for having received the cooperation of members of the staff of the Genesee County Probate Court. The Honorable Frank McAvinchey, senior judge of the Court, granted us permission to use confidential records from the Court's files to obtain the bulk of our data. Judges Philip Elliot and Harold Resteiner of that Court took a personal interest in the perform- ance of the study. Members of the Court‘s secretarial staff afforded us their warm assistance generally, and we feel that Mrs. Doreen Droste deserves special mention in this regard. We are thankful to Mr. Stan Carlson of the Flint Board of Education, who was very helpful in providing us with information about grade-levels of boys in the populations studied. Mr. Jack Pieters, of the staff of Boysfarm, Mr. Edward ("Ned") Badrow, director of Whaley Home, and Mr. Murray Eisen, A.C.S.W., to whom two of the writers are personally indebted as their former field instructcr in Social Work, gave us their -vii- friendly cooperation in the performance of this study. We could never have produced this report without the assist- ance and skills of personnel other than the actual writers. Mr. Stanley Cohen, graduate student of the Department of Psychology at Michigan State University, gave freely of his time and efforts not only in advising us of proper statistical procedures, but in helping us to understand their meaning and implications. Mr. Gary Geuerbacker (affectionately known to us as "Tex") not only performed all of our computer programming, but had to suffer the frustrations of working closely with inexperienced planners unfamiliar, and frequently impatient, with the trials and tribu- lations of developing a computer program to fit our abundant supply of data. Last, but not least, to Marcia Rosman and Elizabeth Haley, who in typing the finished product were uncom- plainingly subjected to the tribulations of a rigid deadline and very severe time limitatiors, we owe a debt of personal thanks. For any errors in the performance and presentation of this study we ourselves, of course, assume full responsibility. Lloyd J. Campbell Henry B. Goldbaum Pamela Jo Kahler East Lansing, Michigan June, 1966 -viii- I .‘f ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS T ABLE OF CONTENTS LI ST OF TABLES O O O 0 O O O O 0 O 0 O 0 0 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . . .,. . . . . . . Chapter I. I NTRODUCTION . o . . . . . . . . Background of the Study . . . Purpose and Aims of the Study . The Population Studied . . . Major Assumptions of this Study Theoretical Framework . . . . . II 0 METHODS O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 III. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA IndiceS Of Data 0 o o o o Operationalized Hypotheses . Research Schedule . . . . . Definitions . . . . . . . . IV. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS . . APPENDIXES I. C 8 II. C Limitations . . . . . . Implications . . . . . . . Impressionistic Findings . . . . Reflections . . . . . . . . . . ensus tracts in Flint, cale of social characteristics . ensus tracts in Genesee County, composite scale of social characteristics III. Individual Record Schedule . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 0 -ix- according to composite according to Page iv vii xi 75 76 77 80 c 0 O a I . O o s Q a . C I . o n . O O O . D a. . . O . . o . . t O a o . O b a 0 a O . . . I . 0 O O D o o e 0 . . O u 0 0 . . . . . O I e a I O ‘ I \0 . . - O. I l o n O O o n O. o D . u . u o 1 e . _ o p I. l . ,. n . . O a . . — O . I. 1.. . u 0 g. . r . h w c \ V . .I . I ~ Table 1. 10. 11. 12. LIST OF TABLES Frequency of Offenses for Whaley Home and Foster Home placements (age group 8-11) . . . . . . . . . Frequency of Offenses for Boysfarm and FOSter Home placements (age group 12-15) . . . . . . . . . Education of Mother for Whaley Home and Foster Home placements (age group 8-11) . . . . . . . . . Education of Mother for Boysfarm and Foster Home placements (age group 12-15) . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Children in Family for Boysfarm and Foster Home populations (age group 12-15) . . . . . Number of Children in Family for Whaley Home and Foster Home populations (age group 8-11) . . . . . Sex Ratio for Whaley Home and Foster Home populations (age group 8-11) . . . . . . . . . . . Sex Ratio for Boysfarm and Foster Home populations (age group 12-15) O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Mean length of time in placement during and prior to 1965 (Foster Home) (all populations) . . . . . . Mean length of time in placement prior to 1965 (all populationS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean length of time in placement during 1965 (FoSter Home) O O C O O O O O O . O . C O C O C . . Mean length of time in placement entire period known to Court (all populations) . . . . . . . . . Page 32 33 #5 M7 h8 u9 50 52 SA SA 55 Figure LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Page Incidence of offenses by type for Whaley Home and Foster Home (age group 8-11) . . . . . . . . . #1 Incidence of offenses by type for Boysfarm and Foster Home (age group 12-15) . . . . . . . . . . . AZ -xi- CHAPTER I ITTRCDUCTION BACKGROUND of the STUDY The present study comes at a time when the court structure in Michigan is under intensive critical study by representatives of all branches of the State government, by virtue of the 1963 Michigan Con- stitution. During a five-year study period, to end in September, 1969, a committee of 27 members (including six appointed by the Governor, six appointed by the State Bar, six by the Supreme Court, six by the Legislature and a Probate Judge, a Justice of the Peace and a Circuit Court Commissioner) will examine the question of how to best implement a system of "courts of limited jurisdiction" which will best serve the needs of the people. A juvenile Court is one such "court of limited jurisdiction" and, des— pite the fact that it was not this area of jurisdiction which the Con— stitutional Convention had in mind when it directed the study, the present attempt at court reorganization would demand a focus on the adequacy of the present Juvenile Court system.1 The Social work profession in particular has a high stake in an adequate juvenile court system due to its deep—seated committment to public welfare and the knowledge that social and emotional problems of individuals begin in childhood. By our inevitable contacts with the courts, we cannot help but become aware of their inadequacies. Sharing an interest in the alleviation of the court's problems with the Legal profession the premises with which we approach the matter differ from theirs in certain significant ways. There is a common awareness that the needs 1The five year court study was instigated by a Constitutional directive that two long—standing institutions, the Justice of the Peace and Circuit Court Commissioners, be abolished by January 1. 1969. Under the 1963 Constitution all Michigan courts are part of "one court of justice" headed by the Supreme Court, which will constitute a system which is "flexible and modern" and, according to a conventional comment under Article VI Sec- tion 15, the possibility of creating a family court was part of this consideration. of courts which deal with "human problems" (notably juvenile matters and domestic relations) are different from those of traditional courts of justice. Children's Charter of the Juvenile Courts of Michigan, a non- profit community organization and social action association, has pointed up the inappropriateness of the traditional legal approach to matters of 2 Such traditional legal practice has centered juvenile jurisdiction. around a "quest for certainty" of guilt or innocence, obtained by “adversary conflict" in court, with a judge serving as umpire. Attitudes derived from such a system "are legally and emotionally a part of the makeup of every lawyer."3 It is thus understandable that members of the Legal profession are uncomfortable in a system which requires judges to be "therapists" rather than "judges"; and yet, as elaborated by Judge John S. GonasLL and othersS viewing the juvenile court as a therapeutic institution is the only appropriate modern position. As an extension of this idea the provision for adequate social services becomes a major criterion in evalu- ating the adequacy of a juvenile court. In Michigan and elsewhere, how- ever, juvenile courts have been hampered in this regard. Children's Charter elaborates the point.6 Qualified social workers are not afforded career opportunities within the (juvenile division of) Probate Court, where the same functions are filled by two sets of workers, one set paid and appointed by the State and the other set by the Court at varying pay scales 2Children's Charter of the Juvenile Courts of Michigan, Pathways to Progress for Michigan's Children, Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1955. 3Ibid.p.l6. UJOhn 3. Genes, "Therapy in the Juvenile Court," American Bar Association JournalI Vol, 48, 1952, p. 326. Swelter H. Backham, "Helpful Practices in Juvenile Court Hearings" and George W. Smith, "The Juvenile Court and Delinquent Parents," both in Clyde B. Vedder, The JuVenile Offender, First Edition, (1954). 6Children's Charter of the Juvenile Court of Michigan,ibid. and undefined standards. The Court has no scholarship-recruiting program for social workers. The pattern of children's services is "chaotic, uncoordinated and incomplete"(reference; Childrens' Charter) due to absence of a structure to provide more adequate services and facilities to meet these needs within Michigan. Services for substitute parental care have developed disproportionately to those supplementing and supporting parental efforts. Court services are more geared to the needs of delinquent child- ren than they are to alleviating problems involving the neglect which primarily causes delinquency, and virtually no thought has been devoted to prevention of delinquency by good diagnostic service within Michigan. Thus it appears, that not only is Juvenile Court unable to obtain soc- ial service personnel to provide better services, but the system of services external to the court upon which it must depend is characterized by gaps, duplication of services and vagueness of agency functions. These problems are not peculiar to Michigan, however, but plague juvenile courts in general. Alfred J. Kahn has much to say on the subject.7 Most juvenile courts, he found, are presided over by "judges who devote the bulk of their time to other courts. There are few judges who may be considered truly specialized in Children's court work." This problem, plus the tendency to excessive workloads for juvenile courts were considered serious problems confronting juvenile courts in a report to the 1960 White House Conference on Children.8 Maxine Boord Virtue found part—time juvenile court judges 9 also to be the case throughout most of Michigan. In summing up the problems of the Juvenile Court in Michigan she noted that "the current problems relate in part to the blurring of administrative with judicial functions, and in part to the lack of facilities both in the court and ZPlanning Community Services for Children in Troublg, New York, 1963, p. 12. 8Ibid. p. 235. 9Maxine Boord Virtue, Basic Structure of Children's Services in Michigan, 1953. -3- 1“---~. --.'~.- outside by which adequate investigation and treatment of children's cases can take place." In order to meet the objectives of a juvenile court she notes three prerequisites: "1. Close and effective cooperation between the court and other judicial and administrative agencies engaged in serv— ing children; 2. Careful, scrupulous and assiduous application of legal theory and practice; 3. Adequate investigating and supervising practices by persons equipped to render these services." None of these, she noted, obtained generally in Michigan at that writing. "Adequate juvenile court administration demands the best of both legal and social work practices; we are getting neither, in Michigan courts."1O As the Children's Charter study indicated twelve years later, the basic problems of providing ade— quate service had remained unsolved. With regard to institutional placement, as Kahn notes, the problems 11 are even more pronounced: "The voluntary institutions have had the advantage of controlling their intake of court-referred delinquents in both type and volume. The larger treatment—oriented institutions may reject four or five children for each one accepted. The residential treatment centers accept only 15% of the children deemed eligible by their referral sources. (Rejection rates reflect referral policy as much as intake policy. An institution may be approached as part of a carefully made plan or in the course of random "shopping for a bed")". Such a policy adopted by agencies and institutions with which the Court must work have an adverse effect on the use of diagnostic criteria in finding an appropriate placement for the individual child; thus, the Courts are "up against it," unable to make fullest use of such diagnostic procedures as are available, even when diagnostic services are, in fact, adequate. Kahn again finds:12 lOIbid. p. 307. llKahn p. 430 12 Ibid. p. 431-432. -u- "The courts are so desperately in need of committment resources and the system of application—allocation is so lacking in central policy and control that children are not clearly separated in accord with need and then assigned to institutions with the most suitable programs. The object- ive is placement and the courts use the best facility available at a given moment. While placement authorities may want a facility offering treat— ment, the treatment is a secondary consideration under the pressure to find a bed. The courts in particular make multiple referrals in their search for placement, often sending the child's case summary 'to institu— tions having different intake criteria and different programs. There is evidentally little precision in the matching of the child to the therap- eutic instrument.’ (Quoting from Donald A. Block, Marjory L. Behrens and others, A Study of Children Referred for Residential Treatment in New York State)." He finds that the designation, "emotionally disturbed child" has become an almost useless phrase to planning purposes or in the referral intake process. Morris F. Mayer,13 listing basic criteria for residential placement, begins by stating that "Residential treatment must be based on diagnosis," a point which Miriam H. Dettelbook14 eXpands: "The referring agency should establish early diagnosis of the clinical and dynamic factors in child- parent relationship and child behavior problems as a guide to treatment methods and goals either in or outside the child's own home." The especially crucial need for diagnosis with regard to placement outside of the natural home, we might add, becomes clear when one considers that a total environmental change results from such placement. A faulty placement, even if detected and remedied, will almost certainly result in disturbing the emotional stability of the child whose stability is already tenuous. "A factor of great therapeutic import inherent in res- idential treatment is the separation of the child from his family. Sepa- ration from home and parents is a crucial emotional CXperience, fraught with harmful as well as helpful possibilities."l5 13Morris F. Mayer, "The Role of Residential Treatment for Children," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 25, 1955, pp667-668. thiriam H. Dettelbook "Criteria for Agency Referral of a Child to a Residential Treatment Center," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol 25' 19.55! pp' 669-674- lSHerscel Alt,Residential Treatment for the Disturbed Child, l960,p.607. -5- When, as in our study, children come from unsuitable homes and foster family or other placement must be arranged, "In many instances, appropriate placements cannot be found immediately, and the children must remain at the center beyond the point at which they are ready to leave."16 Social factors, then, as well as emotional criteria must be considered by the court in referring a child for residential treatment, with the clear consideration of whether a placement contemplated for a few months may actually last for a period of even years. Finally, Herschel Alt finds that individual foster homes may have some value as a psychotherapeutic resource, if the placement process is handled in a truly professional manner;17 "With the greater degree of professionalization in the foster care field already noted, there has been increasing experimentation in the use of the foster home as a treatment resource for the distrubed child. The aim has been to preserve for the child the positive features of the ordinary foster home while at the same time minimizing some of its limit- ations." This factor would render improved diagnostic facilities and procedure of greater worth to Michigan juvenile courts, which are generally responsible for their own foster home placements. lELydia F. Hylton, The Residential Treatment Center: Children,_Programs, and Costs, New York, 1964. 17.3.1’0 , -6- PURPOSE AND AIMS OF THE STUDY This project is concerned with the degree to which the Genesee County Juvenile Court employs diagnostic criteria in the placement of boys in settings other than their natural homes. we assume, for purposes of this 18 are study, that previous residence in homes deemed unfit by the court potential breeding—grounds for emotional and/or characterological distur- bances, and that it is the purpose of the Court to detect and appropiately deal with such disturbances, through judgments based on diagnostic inves- tigation. Our study will attempt ot determine to what extent judgments resulting in placement of boys outside of their natural homes reflect the use of diagnostic procedures. we therefore hope to evaluate diagnostic studies performed in connection with cases in our populations. Where it is found that judgments appear to be based on factors other than the ideal of basis in purely diagnostic criteria we will attempt to indicate the Specific nature of such deviant criteria employed. In attempting to accomplish this purpose, cases admitted to two open institutions by Court referral during 1965 (Whaley Memorial Foundation and Boysfarm) will be compared with each other and with a population of boys placed in individual licensed foster homes by the Court during 1965. All placements involved are within Genessee County. All references to "Court" refer to the Juvenile Division of the Genessee County Probate Court. lBBy "deeming as unfit" we refer to the assumption that a child would not be removed from his natural home unless, in the opinion of the court, there is some causative factor in the home situation itself for the child's problem behavior or some definite potential cause for such problem behavior, or unless the in loco parentis persons are physically or emotionally inadequate to deal with the child's problem. The three groups of boys in our study, comprise three separate populations, rather than samples from larger populations. Use of sampling statistics was therefore inappropriate. The Juvenile Division of Genesee County Probate Court has two judges, both of whom are full-time children's Court specialists and both of whom are qualified attorneys. While part of the Probate Court it is, in actuality, a functionally separate court. According to the l909 Constitution of Michigan (Article IV, sections 1-2) jurisdiction in all cases of juvenile delinquents and dependents was conferred upon probate court in each county, which set the general character of the Court at that point. Prior to that time, however, in 1901 a statute was passed regulating the confinement and trial of infants under 16 years, forbidding detention of children with adults, prohibiting the presence of children in any courtroom during the trials of adults and requiring separate trials for children. A special court was provided in 1905, having jurisdiction over all juvenile cases-—both delinquent and dependent and neglected. The Act was declared unconstitutional and replaced, in 1907, by establishment of a new juvenile court fixing the age—limit at 17 years for both boys and girls and giving the Probate Court original jurisdiction. Citiexs of 25,000 or more could establish separate juvenile courts instead, however, thus removing jurisdiction from the Probate Court. The latter system was instituted in Wayne County, but the Court came under attack because it provided for a six—man jury rather than twelve, as then guaranteed by the Michigan Constitution. It was thus the new Constitution, in 1909, which established the present system. A 1912 judgment (Van Leuven v. Ingham Circuit Judges) firmly established the non-criminal nature of juvenile court proceedings in Michigan. -8- In 1944 the Michigan Juvenile Court Act was revised, drawing revisions from the 1925 Standard Juvenile Court Act (National Probation and Parole Association) but differing in several ways. Judges are elected, rather than appointed according to special qualifications. Another important difference is that the Court has jurisdiction over adults charged with violations of law which cause a child to come within the orbit of the Juvenile Court.19 In practice the Genesee County Juvenile Court judges have separate but overlapping functions, one specializing in delinquent, and the other in dependency and neglect cases. As Virtue notes, incidentally, Special- ized children’s judges as found in Genesee County are not the case throughout Michigan.20 The Genesee County Juvenile Court is divided into separate sections for girls and boys. In line with this division court workers, too, are separated by the sexually-defined division in which they serve. The two institutions from which our populations are drawn are Whaley Memorial Foundation and Boysfarm. Whaley Home (as it is termed colloquially) is a privately—supported institution accommodating 30 boys. Its stated function is "To provide care for children with school and adjustment problems, in a treatment—focused open residential center, and some foster homes. Casework and psychiatric services are provided. "Each boy receives one hour weekly of psychotherapy by a trained staff (including two caseworkers with M.S. W. degrees, one second-year student . . . . . . 21 and one case—aide With a B.A. degree and intensive 1n-serv1ce training.) l9Information about the history and peculiar characteristics of juvenile courts in Michigan can be found in Maxine Boord Virue, BASIC STRUCTUER . OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES IN MICHIGAN, 1953. 20ibid.,p.42. 21COUNCIL OF SOCIAL AGENCIES GUIDE TO GENESEE COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES. -9- Boysfarm is Sponsored by the Flint, Michigan Y.M.C.A., and supported by Red Feather funds, fees and contributions. Its stated function is "To provide an experience in group living for boys who are having difficulty adjusting in their home, school or community. Application from recognized social agencies or by parents or guardians. Ages 9-15 at time of admission."22 Thirty—two boys are accommodated. There are no social workers on the Boysfarm staff with the M.S. W. degree. The Populations Studied There were seven boys accepted, by court referral, for placement at the Whaley Memorial Foundation, during 1965. In the same year there were seven boys accepted for placement by Court referral at Boysfarm. The Whaley population, as we will refer to these seven boys, ranged in age from eight through twelve years. The Boysfarm population ranged between eleven and fifteen years of age, inclusive. It was expedient to control for age in our two institutional populations. One boy from the Boysfarm population, aged 11 years, two months at time of placement, has been classified as age 12 years, and one boy in the Whaley Home population age 12 years 6 months at time of placement, has been classified as 11 years of age, only when the insti- tutional population as a whole is to be compared with the corresponding age group within the individual foster home population, to compare averaged tendencies of the two age-matched groupings. By employing this expedient we are able to avoid the necessity of dividing the two insti- tutional placements on the basis of age. Since only one member of each institutional population (out of seven for each) deviated from age—groups which would otherwise remain separate but consecutive, it was felt that controlling the populations for age-grouping thusly would affect our results in only minor degree. Our individual foster home population 221bid. -10- includes fifty—three boys (representing fifty-one families) placed, by Court decision, in licensed foster homes during 1965. Major Assumptions of this Study In undertaking the present research, our approach springs from what we take to be the legitimate theoretical framework of the Social Wbrk profession. Selection of a topic will reflect our professional concerns and, perhaps, personal biases. It is hoped that errors of validity which may result from such biases or from overly-narrow disciplinary viewpoints will be prevented hysufficiently rigorous scientific methodology to ensure factual results. Several assumptions underlie the design and content of the present study. The first of these is that: A juvenile court, and specifically the Genesee County Juvenile Court is intended as a therapeutic.institution. Our introductory section has attempted to state and justify this assump- tion. Of Special note is an article by Judge John S. Gonas,23 An assumption that all behavior, being motivated, is indicative of some psychological need which may be discovered by diagnostic study is essential to our approach. - When the behavior is seen by legal agencies as problematic to the commun- :ity or society, or potentially destructive of the performer, we may assume that it is motivated by psychopathological functioning. It is not within the scope of this study to discover the underlying psycho- dynamics behind some particular type of offense. We would expect the Court to attempt, as a therapeutic institution, to discern the cause of any individual problematic behavior which is brought before it, and base its judgments (geared toward treatment) on such a cause. 230p Cit., John S. Gonas. -ll- For purposes of this study, it is to be assumed that the performance of any one type of offense, especially repeatedly, by any one boy diifers in underlying psychological causation from the performance of any other specific type of offense. Such an assumption allows us to use "type of offense" as a criterion of diagnostic import,‘and to View this as such in relation to judgments by the court. We assume that greater length of time within a particular placement- setting is an indication of the successful matching of a particular boy with a particular setting, in general, since the court would normally remove a child who, in its estimation, is imprOperly placed (in its function as a therapeutic agency); that length of time in placement can be considered a measure of the stability of placement, and is indicative of the soundness of diagnostic reasoning underlying the court's judgment. The assumption is fraught with certain problems. Some placements are designed to be temporary, such as what we have labeled "Children's Fac— ilities." For any particular case, however, more than one such temporary placement in the course of one year is clearly not indicative of good treatment procedure. Frequent short—term placements can undermine the emotional stability of a child who is emotionally disturbed, as we would expect the majority of offending children who come under the Juv- enile Court’s jurisdiction to be characterized. If excessive use is made of temporary placement facilities in any one case, this will be reflected in the data. Most placements are meant to be relatively permanent. When such placements result in only temporary residence any number of factors may be operating. The selection of a setting is only one of these involving, as it does, the court's assumed awareness of the general adequacy of such a setting (based on minimum standards defined by the court), but diagnostically such adequacy is meaningful only in relation to the needs of a particular offending child and his specific problem. The child's -12- ability to adjust to any setting is an important and highly variable consideration; but in our study it is assumed that examined statis- tically, fitting of particular boys to particular placements, based on. adequate use of diagnostic criteria, would tend to reduce the incidence of need to change settings due to poor adjustment. Theoretical Framework Our study is based on the assumption that the juvenile court is, in fact, intended as a "therapeutic" agency, in the context of meaning assigned to that term by professional clinicians, and that the "thera- peutic" purpose is consistent with a clinical model of procedure, rather than with a legalistic approach to court procedure. In this line of reasoning our research has several implications. The very term "diagnosis" belongs in a clinical, rather than a legal context. Diagnosis implies treatment, rather than punishment. The performance of treatment requires not only the "knowledge of the law" and such personal qualities as a sense of "justice", "mercy" etc., but also, the integration of skills necessary in assessing the probable results of a decision in effecting some goal, as the rehabilitation of the offender. The offender must be seen not only as an individual who has disobeyed some law or ordinance, but as a functioning entity within a larger system; a family, a community, the larger society, all affecting this treatment-goal in some fashion. The juvenile court as an agency of treatment, however, owes its potential effectiveness not only to the clinical, "therapeutic" qualities which we may attribute to it; for its legal aspects lend the Court authority to carry out decisions based, in our society, on public sanction and definitive statutory powers. Legal principles are, of course, a well established basis for court procedure in the United -13- States; yet the concerns of the legal profession differ from those of clinicians in significant ways. That a court with jurisdiction over juvenile matters remain primarily a court, administering justice according to the law, is a basic requirement in the fulfillment of its social purpose. The modern definition of that purpose, as rehabilitation of "wayward youth", is a directive for integration of clinical procedure within the court's structure. Integration and effectiveness go hand in hand. We are not concerned with the question of whether the Juvenile Court is a court; this is assumed to be the case. Our study is directed to the question of whether that Court is functionally integrated with the therapeutic purposes which we attribute to it. As in clinical procedure, "diagnostic" considerations are meaningful only insomuch as they define an effective course of treatment. With the foregoing considerations in mind, we are attempting to test a group of related hypotheses with the aim of statistically inferring those aspects of Court procedures and decisions which were diagnostically indicated by social and behavioral characteristics of the boys in our study. Our major hypotheses concern frequency and types of offense recorded, social factors in the boys' backgrounds, histories of court—directed foster settings (both institutional and individual) and court—procedures. -14- CHAPTER II METHODS The hypotheses, stated in this chapter, are designed to measure the functioning of the Genesee County Juvenile Court in its role as a therapeutically-geared institution. The approach of this study has been limited by time considerations which did not permit, as originally planned, the development of an interview schedule through which we might have measured attitudes of court personnel in addition to the record-analysis approach followed in the present study. By analyzing the records of boys in our pepulations we hope to assess the Court's functioning as'a therapeutic institution through the use of statistical inference. Items selected for inclusion in our research schedule were based upon this goal. Indices of Data There are essentially four types of index utilized for data pertaining to each boy in our study. The first of these is a social index, consist- ing of information which defines the position of any individual boy within our three pepulations, in relation to significant other persons, and to the community. Under this index are what we might call socio— psychological factors which describe the boy, in relation to other family members, or which describe a situation characterizing the family group, which may be expected to have a direct psychological bearing on the development of the boy. An example of the former case would be number of siblings or ordinal position of the boy; the latter case is exemplified by marital status of parents. Also included within the social index -15- would be sociological factors, which define the position of the family and hence, any of its members in relation to the community. Race, religious affiliation, and social status are such factors. The second index could be termed "behaviorglg" and will consist of some recorded act or group of acts performed, either by an individual boy or his parent-person. The most prominent type of "behavioral" data in our study would be measurements of individual frequency of offenses of any kind both prior to and during 1965, and frequency of some part- icular type of offense in the boy's history. In relation to our overall purpose, information of a behavioral nature is seen to have diagnostic import, assuming that all behavior is motivated and reflects some psychological need or pathology on the part of the performer. A third index employed is comprised of individual intelligence, and academic achievement as compared with normal grade level for age. These two measures have in common an individualized assessment of "achievement capacity" (which we have termed this index), although neither is def- initive in this regard when isolated from social and psychological factors. The fourth index might be termed "situational," and we might differ- entiate factors involved here from the socio-psychological which, strictly speaking, are also situational. The "stability'of placement" and "type of placement" items belong under the present heading. These reflect, primarily, type and (by implication) diagnostic acuity of court judgments, given the assumption that a court judgment based on adequate and skilled diagnostic evaluation will be more stable than one which is not so based. -16- Operationalized Hypotheses HYPOTHESIS I: Measures of "seriousness of offenses" and "frequency of offenses" will show greater mean scores for boys in the institutional populations than for boys in the matched aged-groupings of the individual foster home pepulation. Six measures will be employed to test this hypothesis. "Mean seriousness of offense" is measured according to a scale of offenses ranked according to "seriousness" which we have devised as follows: Offense Score Stealing Six Aggressive Behavior Five Drunkeness Four Running away and Truancy Three Incorrigibility Two Violating Probation One *the scores for these offenses are arbitrary based on an estimate of whether any particular offense represents a clear-cut instance of acting-out (as opposed to an im- pressionistic judgement of motivation, etc.), typicality of rebellious ex- presseion for age-group (almost every- body has run away or truanted at one time, almost any act could be inter- preted as violation of probation,etc.) "Offense" was defined as reason for a particular placement or movement, rather than the number of counts of each offense involved. While sometimes movements or placements were made for a single type of offense, frequently more than one type was the cause of placement or movement. In such a case, seriousness was measured as the sum of numerical scores of all offenses involved. Mean Score = Sum of "seriousness" scores for all offenses Number of offenses -17- "Age of first offense" will be used as a measure of seriousness, inasmuch as it may be assumed that the earlier a boy's history of known offense begins, the greater is the potential for increased pathological patterns to develop. "Frequency of Offense per year" is measured by adding the scores of all offenses and dividing by the number of years from the first placement until December 31, 1965. For any first offense committed in 1965, scores will be divided by one year. "Seriousness of first offense" will be used (equals seriousness of the sums of all offenses at time of first placement) to determine the intensity of pathological functioning when first known to the Court. It should be remembered that some boys may have moved to Genesee County from elsewhere and may have had prior court records. "Mean seriousness of offense as weighted by age" will be measured by the following formula: Mean Seriousness of Offense (weighted) =w Mean Serieusness*, X (Age—group weight at first placement + Age—group weight at first 1965 placement) divided by 2. Age—group weight (for mean seriousness) = l +(5 - number representing age—group) x 1/3. *This is measure number one, above. The Whaley Home pepulation will be weighted the same as age—group number three, the Boysfarm population the same as age-group number four. These weights will be divided by one-third, to yield what we feel will be a more accurate association between age-group and degree of pathology, ie, the behavior of a boy is not really five time as pathological for his having committed his first offense at age four than of a boy who commits his first offense at age sixteen. -18- "Mean seriousness of offense excluding first offense" will be used to measure the degree to which average seriousness represents an increase or a decrease from degree of seriousness of the first offense. Degree of association with setting, for all of‘the above measures, will be tested using Pierson Product Moment Correlations, inasmuch as the data has been ranked into discrete numerial values. HYPOTHESIS II: There will be statistically significant differences in proportional frequencies of diagnostically-significant social factors, between the institutional populations and the age-matched groupings of the individual foster home population. The phenomena (factors) tested here are: (l) marital status of parents; (2) socio—economic status as measured by area of parental residence within Genesee County; (3) parental levels of education; (a) race; (5) religious affiliation; (6) size of family (number of children in family); (7) sex ratio in family; (8) ordinal position Of boy, and (9) Occupation of parents. The significance of differences will be tested using chi-square measures, as factors involved are nominal. Essentially, Hypothesis I attempts to compare the behavioral index with type (institutional vs. individual) of setting, and hypothesis II attempts to compare the social index with type of setting. Together, these hypotheses attempt to test the degree to which type of setting is associated with diagnostically relevant factors. If such an association holds, we can assume that the court has maintained a diagnostic orient- ation in effecting these placements. Significant differences in diagnost— ically relevant factors between the two institutional pepulations would allow us to infer that the court recognizes differential treatment aims for each institution. -19- HYPOTHESIS III: There will be a significant relationship between measures of "stability of placement", and mean frequences of each of the following diagnostically—relevant-categories; (l) marital status of parents; (2) parental levels of educa- tion; (3) socio-economic status as measured by area of parental residence within Genesee County; (4) Race; (5) religious affiliation; (6) size of family (number of children in family); (7) sex ratio in‘family, and (8) ordianl position of boy. Measures of "relative stability of placement" include; (1) mean length of time per placement during the entire period known to the court; (2) mean length of time per placement prior to 1965; (3) mean length of time per placement during 1965 (individual foster home population only); (4) frequency of placement in 1965 (individual foster home population only); and (5) frequency of placement for the entire period known to the Court. The 1965 measures exclude the institutional populations, since boys placed at Whaley Home or Boysfarm generally tend to remain in placement in accordance with treatment goals set by these institutions. Data for 1965 would vary in accordance with the date in 1965 that a boy entered the institution, since boys tend to remain for at least one year. HYPOTHESIS IV: we do not eXpect relative stability of placement (as measured in hypothesis III, above) to vary significantly with the specific (1) ages, (2) I.Q.'s or (3) grades normal or retarded of each individual boy in the study. Hypotheses III and IV together attempt to establish variables of diagnostic relevance in predicting placement stability. While some boys will have relatively unstable placements due to the nature of their pathology of behavior, independent of court action, it is felt that court procedures based on diagnostic considerations would result in greater stability per placement. -20- The social factors concerned in hypothesis III may be causative of psychopathology, whereas such pathology might effect the "achievement- capacity" factors associated with placement—stability in Hypothesis IV. A high degree of association in hypothesis III might indicate that court decisions have failed to adequately consider diagnostic implications of the variable under test. In hypotheses IV, a high degree of association might indicate some degree of court bias in placeing boys of certain ages or who display certain levels of achievement—capacity; however, the possible symptomatic nature of these characteristics should be taken into accofint in considering the results of testing this hypothesis. HYPOTHESIS V: Those boys, regardless of type of placement, whose reasons for movement or placement at any time include "pathological home situation" will have a higher frequency of psycholo— gical tests administered, a lesser degree of stability of placement (as measured in hypothesis III), anl a greater mean frequency of siblings placed outside of the home. Acceptance of hypothesis V would indicate that the court shows? cognizance of implications of a home situation characterized by parental aberrations; by ascertaining the psychological effects on a chill of having been subjected to pathological conditions, and by realizing the potential effects not only on the chili who might have committel some offense, but also on his siblings (and taking appropriate corrective action). The test for stability of placement here would inlicate the degree to which a "pathological home situation" would generally result in increased psychopathology, indicated by difficulties of adjustment and acting-out behavior. -21- HYPOTHESIS VI: Whether, in particular decisions for placement regardless of type of p acement—setting, recommendations for psych— ological and/or psychiatric reports.were followed, will not be significantly related to any of the following factors: (1) marital status of parents; (2) socio- economic status as measurei by area of parental residence; (3) racial grouping; (4) religious affiliation; (5) school—grade achievement relative to normal grade level for age, and (6) I.Q. The purpose of hypothesis VI is to test for possible biases of the court, in placing boys in foster settings. Our Statement is set up to reject such biases, thus assuming that the court will base its decisions strictly on diagnostic criteria. Through statistical inference, however, we would hope to discover such biases where they may exist. By using the term "bias" we do not wish to imply, should we be forced to reject the hypothesis in part, that this necessarily would assume "narrow- mindedness" or social prejudice, as the term is often used colloquially. Some biases may reflect, rather, an attitude that a particular factor is causally connected with prognostic indication for the success of treatment. With a limited supply of treatment facilities the court must sift out "reality factors" in any particular case. HYPOTHESIS VII: For the individual foster home population, the greater the frequency of responses "ues, in full" to whether recommendations found in (a) psychological reports and (b) psychiatric reports were followed by the court, the smaller will be the frequency of placement or movement during 1965. Similarily, boys for whom the response was "yes, in part" will have lesser mean frequency of place- ment or movement in 1965 than will boys for whom the response is "no". This hypothesis attempts to test for the degree to which following the recommendations of diagnostic reports will result in greater stability of placement. -22- The Research Schedule A copy of the schedule used to extract relevant factors from the court records studied is included for the benefit of the reader. Where responses were used without further classification, no comments are necessary. Many responses for items within the schedule were broken down into classifications, however. A definition of classifications follows. Ages of all boys in the Individual Foster Home population were categorized in the following manner; Age group number one consisted of boys age four and under, none of whom had committed a delinquent act. Age group number two consisted of boys age five through seven. Age group number three consisted of all boys age eight through eleven. This group was matched by age with the Whaley Home population. Age group number four consisted of boys age twelve through fourteen, and was matched for age with the Boysfarm population. Age group number five consisted of boys fifteen years of age Under item #12, "Offenses" or "reason for placement or movement" in Court actions was broken down into ten classifications, the first six of which were descriptive of some type of offense committed by the boys 1. "Larceny and forgery," including any incidence of stealing or forgery of checks. Armed robbery also fell into this classific— ation. 2. "Aggressive behavior" included fighting, sex offenses, setting fires, and choking siblings. 3. "Incorrigibility or peer adjustment" were seen as related phenomena, and were generally reasons for placement or movement, either from or to home, individual foster homes or institutions. 4. "Runaway and truancy" were classified together, as both phenomena are characterized by retreat, escape or other absence from an environment in which a boy's presence is socially prescribed and sanctioned. -23- "Drunkenness" included use of alcohol and glue-sniffing, which were classified together as vices or excesses. "Violating probation," seemed unrelated to any other class of offenses and was, thus, classified separately. "Pathological home situation" refers to any instance of parental behavior for which a boy became involved in'oourt action, and includes neglect, inability of parent to preperly care for children, parental promiscuity, incarceration of parent or abuse of child. "Administrative or Social Factor" refers to any reason for movement between settings, not specifically involving a behavioral act (with exception, parents not paying board.) Other reasons include decision to place a boy with his sibling, advanced age or poor health of a foster parent, dismissal of a case by the court'(due to such factors as age of boy beyond juvenile court jurisdiction), or closing of an institution. This includes also (8a) movement from a placement setting used on a temporary basis, to a more permanent arrangement. "Good adjustment" in any setting or probation was generally a reason for dismissal from Court jurisdiction. Included in this classification was one instance of mother's improvement in a hospital, when the Court has temporarily placed a child due to mother's illness. 10. No reason given in the record. Under the same item were listed types of placement or movement (as a type of Court action). Categories used included the following: 1. "Licensed Foster Homes". "Whaley Home" "Boysfarm". "Children's Facility", which included any placement made on a temporary basis, in Genesee County Juvenile Home, which serves the purpose of keeping children in custody, prior to availability of a more permanent arrangement. "Home, with Court probation". "Home of parent not lived with previously," included placement in residence with a separated parent other than the parent who had previous custody of the boy. "Permanent institutional placement" included placement in any institution other than Whaley Home or Boysfarm, which had a purpose of providing long-term custody to the child. -24- 8. "other" included placement with a relative, neighbors, or preadoptive home. 9. "Boys Training School" was defined as school rather than an open—custodial or residential treatment institution. We attempted, using item 12, to determine the length of time for which the boy remained in any placement setting. Time periods were classified in terms of degree of stability, and classes include the following. 1. Less than 1 week 6. 546 months 2. One to two weeks 7. 7-8 months 3. Three weeks to one month 8. 9-10 months 4. 1-2 months 9. ll-lZ months 5. 3-4 months 10. Over 1 year Item Q, Occupation of parents. Classification are selfuexplain- atory, except that "Service worker" and "Private household" were not employed. "Operations" was used to refer to any occupation which did not include a skill (synonymous with "unskilled laborer"). House- wives were classified as "unemployed". Responses for item 5, "Education of parents (highest grade com- pleted)" were classified according to estimated social significance of level achieved. Classifications were: 1. Less than 8th grade 4. Completed 12th grade 2. Completed 8th grade 5. Over 12 grades 3. 9-llth grade 6. Unknown Address at time of court action was included to determine socio- economic status, by plotting residence by area on maps of the City of Flint and of Genesee County. (Map B and Map C, respectively).24 These maps are subdivided according to "Composite Scale of Social Char— acteristics", based on data from the 1960 United States Census. Socio- economic factors used to rank areas were employment ratio, family income over $4,000, occupation ratio, wdmon out of labor force, earning age 556553331 of Socail Agencies of Flint and Genesee County, Michigan, More about People: Their Environment and Services They Use, Tart II: Census Tract trojectj Flint and Genesee,'CountyL 1965:fpp.8—9. -25- (18-64), education over 8th grade, stability ratio, home ownership, home value over $15,000, and dwelling condition. "Composite scale"' ran from A through 0, with A the highest socio-economic category.for any area. An attempt was made to gather characteristics of, and specific data from court social studies which, had this goal been achievable, would have provided us with much qualitative data. In gathering data we found, however, the quality and adequacy of information gathered so variable as not to be comparable from one case to another. Adequate and more uniform social studies would have provided us with specified historic information for each boy studied, individual family dynamics and the like, and the inability to uniformally obtain this valuable information is unfortunate. One explanation for this inability of the court to prepare adequate social histories, especially in cases for which placement in a foster setting is indicated, is the haste with which arrangements must often be made. While the court might require workers to gather detailed social information after custory arrangements have been completed, apparently heavy workloads do not allow for this. One section of our schedule had to be deleted from consideration. Mbst families were found to be what are frequently termed "multi- problem", characterized by unstable marriage, alcoholism of father, poor school histories of children. Developing some meaningful, uniform classification for this data, would have presented methodological difficulties. One category of school adjustment was recorded. We felt number of grades, if any, behind normal school grade for age to be a significant indicator of achievement potential. Frequently this could not be found -26- in court records, so data was obtained from the Flint Board of Education and recorded for each boy. Where school classes were ungraded, the Board of Education gave grade level of functioning during l965 (the 1964- 65 school year). Definitions Certain terms used in this study were defined to fit our purposes. Definitions follow for these. "Delinquency" and "dependent and Neglect" are the two categories of case record classification used by the Court, to describe the class of petition under which a child or family first become known to the Court. "Pure Neglect" is our own classification. Generally speaking, when a case is classified "Dependent and Neglect" by Juvenile Court this classification remains, even when a child has committed an offense which would normally be classified as "delinquent." For the boys in our study, we found numerous "delinquent" offenses in cases classified as "Dependent and Neglect." Where no such delinquent offense was recorded, we termed the case "pure neglect." "Placement" refers to any decision by the court to remove a boy from one setting, and place him in another. The setting to which a boy is sent to reside by court decision is known as the "placement setting." "Movement" refers to any change of setting, directed by Court action. Placement is one type of movement; however, placement does not include return to residence in the parent's home from a placement setting. "Move- ment is a broader term, used to designate termination of a placement as well as placement itself. "Offense" is any act of the part of a boy which, due to its pro- -27- blematic fication offenses comprise nature, brings the boy to the Court's attention (See Classi- of offenses, above included description of schedule item #12: comprise categories 1 through 6). "Reasnns for movement” classifications 7 through 9 of item #12. These do not include the commission of any problematic act on the part of the boy but provide some reason for placement or movement through court action. ~28-~ CHAPTER III Presentation and Analysis of Data In the present chapter we will present and review results of our study, derived from bivariite contingency tables of data gathered. Due to relatively small pejulations which were further divided into age-groups in testing most of our hypotheses, little relevance can be accorded most of the statistical calculations (Chi-square for nominal and Pierson Product Moment Correlations for ranked data, the latter of which can generally be viewed as interval scales, as classification represent discrete units). Frequency distributions and comparative means, for the most part, seem to provide a more accurate account of results. For this reason such measures will be emphasized, although measures of association will be presented when these are obviously significant or for highly unexpected results. Chi-square measures are viewed at the 0.05 level cf significance and a correlation of 0.35 or higher is considered significant. We wish to emphasize certain points in relation to the data presented. Our approach has not been to study directly the procedures of the Genesee County Juvenile Court, nor the attitudes of its personnel, but rather, to infer some estimate of the Court's effectiveness as a "therapeutic" agency by viewing certain specific results of Court- directed placements of boys in differential foster settings. In addition, as social workers, we have chosen certain methods which we view as preper diagnostic procedure Ger example, obtaining psychological -29- studies and social histories for each boy) and have attempted to discover to what extent such procedures are actually followed. Further- more, we have devised certain social and psychological variables which, on the basis of our professional judgment, we have considered "diag- nostically relevant." The presence of such factors, and their intensity are assumed to be indicators of need for differential forms of treatment. Any of these methodological expedients may provide some source of error in conclusions reached. A further source of error may lie in arbitrary decisions which we found expedient in catcgorizing and evaluating our data. Ratings for "seriousness of offense" is one example of this. It should be kept in mind that this is an gfi post facto study of court records. For this reason it has not been possible to obtain optimally useful data for each index. Dependence upon recorded infor- mation provides limitations in control of the data. Our personal inex- perience in research-desisn has been another source of limitation in data collection. Thus, for example, recording that a boy "stole" does not indicate whether he stole a loaf of bread or an automobile, whether the act of stealing was accompanied by other offenses, whether the boy was armed and with what type of weapon. Sellin and wolfgang provide an excellent guide for study of delinquent offenses. 25 Such a study would require considerable supervision over methods of recording information by court personnel. A cohort study would certainly be more satisfactory in evaluating the results of court decisions. ESTESFEton Sellin and Marvin E. Wblfgang, THE MEASUREMENT OF DELIN- QHENCY, New York, 1964, Chapter 15, "Theory, Design, and Procedure for the Scaling of Offenses," pp. 236-258, -30- Despite these limitations, however, we feel that our design has much to offer. In social research, especially, an Ex post facto approach is often necessary. Available data in such instances is frequently spotty or inadequate. An indirect means of testing objectives seems more the rule than the exception (that is, the use of seemingly arbitrary assumgdens about what data may indicate.) Presentation and evalation of data is organized in sequence of hypotheses tested. In HYPOTHESIS I, "seiousness of offense" measures yielded some interesting findings. .Aoomparison of the Whaley Home population with the foster home age-group8mll in association with "mean seriousness of offense, entire period Known to the Court " yielded a product moment correlation of -0.638. This can be interpreted as meaning the higher the mean seriousness of’cffense, the lower will be probability of placement in an individua; foster home as contrasted with Whaley Home within age-group 8—ll. The average mean score for Whaley Home was 9.57 with a standard deviation of 3.55, while the average mean score for the foster home age-group 8—ll was 3.20, with a standard deviation of 4.32. The high standard deviation for the foster home age—group 8-11 is striking compared with that for the Whaley population; however, this is due to a highly'skewed distribution for the former population. Five of the ten boys in this foster home age group had no offense. hence a.mean score of zert. Had we eliminated these boys from consid- eration the contrast would have been less striking, yet the trend is greatly evident, as shown in the table of frequency distributions, following. -31- ' .~- _-—. ' . . . n. I u . . . I . . , ’ ‘ . - ' . O 1‘ ' r. A . I r l I ‘7 VI 7 V , -- r . v . ) ‘ n ' H r , . .l . , ‘- 0 . A I .n‘ ‘ A r . o. ‘ . A I. ' ‘ v ‘ ‘ . -A l I ' . ~ I - o-‘ v“ r ' ‘ r ‘ I v ' ‘ ' . " ‘ . . ’ . ‘ u- I >' I ‘ (r A ‘ J .., 1' ~ ‘ . . -‘ . ‘ ‘ u¥ . ' . . . TAB FREQUENCY OF OFFENSES FOR WHALEY HOME LE I AND FOSTER HOME PLACEMENTS .Ageéggpup 8-11 Whaley Home Foster Home Score N % N % 0 0 00.00 5 50.00 1 0 00.00 0 00.00 2 0 00.00 1 10.00 3 0 00.00 0 00.00 4 0 00.00 0 00.00 5 l 14.29 1 10.00 6 0 00.00 2 20.00 7 2 28.57 0 00.00 8 0 00.00 0 00.00 9 l 14.29 0 00.00 10 0 00.00 0 00.00 11 l 14.29 0 00.00 12 0 00.00 0 00.00 13 0 00.00 1 10.00 14 2 28.57 0 00.00 Total 7 100.00 10 100.00 MEAN 9.57 3.20 Standard Deviation _3.55 4,32 we note, from the frequency distributions, that of the individual foster home (age—group 8—11) boys who had offenses, four out of five had "mean seriousness" scores of six or below, while only one boy out of seven in the Whaley Home population had a "mean seriousness" score of six or below. Clustering, with the exception of the zero scores for the individual foster home group, seems insignificant; however, the total absence of zero scores for the Whaley Home population is highly significant. This is due to the fact that-every boy in the Whaley population had offenses in 1965. None, incidentally, had any offenses prior to 1965. No boy in the foster home age-group 8-11 had any offenses prior to 1965. The mean for the Boysfarm population was .07 (s.d. = .19) offenses per year; but for the foster home age group -32- .‘""""’ ".‘""“ ‘ firfiw: -.-._ .. er .» . u...... 1 - v ---._. .— "‘““ n~.—---¢ " '>~ - . . .... -. -......-._-,... .W.-.- ..._.-__..~ >O-.qm.——o-_ .—.....~. . U . _ j _ . V }L j _ , _ . .‘ , - A» -- ~ ..- u—....‘-.« w- --or . ,--... .- .....—.—..«.‘2. > ‘ r - .pn- moa--‘O—a|~n-A*u .. . . .. . - _..... -~.--...-—.—-_—o. .A...-._..._...'_ --. .. .-...-—.—~.. .-. . .. , ..._. ........—- m.--» .........—.....~—-..........- .--. " ‘ -~~-.-—.—...- . .. — -.-—--.c-- .I'v-n‘n.‘ ‘._... . A . . .1. "r... - .un .-...-—- —. - 1 . . ,. . . .. .- r; _ . . .- V O x c . a . h . V 1 "\ ~' 1 . 1 , , - ,. , . . ~ . , ‘ ‘ ' . . - .. u n 12-15, mean frequency of offense per year jumped to 1.02 (s.d. = 2.28), however. The comparison analogous to table one (associated with mean seriousness of offense) for the Boysfarm population vs age—group 12-15 of the individual foster home population is considerably less striking, yielding a product moment correlation of only-0.1282 (non-significant). The overall trend is similar, however. TABLE 2 FREQUENCY OF OFFENSES FOR BOYSFARM AND FOSTER HOME PLACEMENTS ) . g4, . Age Group 12-15 g.,___‘ Boysfarm Foster Home Score N % N £7 0.0 0 00.00 1 3.85 0.5 0 00.00 0 00.00 1.0 0 00.00 0 00.00 1.5 0 00.00 0 00.00 2.0 l 14.29 1 3.85 2.5 0 00.00 0 00.00 3.0 0 00.00 5 19.23 3.5 0 00.00 2 7.69 4.0 0 00.00 0 00.00 4.5 0 00.00 3 11.54 5.0 0 00.00 3 11.54 5.5 l 14.29 1 3.85 6.0 0 00.00 3 11.54 6.5 O 00.00 1 3.85 7.0 0 00.00 0 00.00 7.5 1 14.29 2 7.69 8.0 2 28.57 1 3.85 8.5 0 00.00 0 00.00 9.0 1 14.29 1 3.85 9.5 1 14.29 0 00.00 10.0 0 00.00 0 00.00 10.5 0 00.00 0 00.00 11.0 0 00.00 2 7.69 Total 7 100.00 26 100.00 MEAN 7.07 5.25 Standard Deviation 2.58 2.58 -33- , . ‘ r . 4 I . --.. . . -. —._ . -- n u-- -< u.—... w‘”-—-.—.——-c.— .- ~- ..-_ *Scores for "mean Seriousness of offense, entire period known to Court" is fractional in both tables. By coincidence, however, all scores in the table comparing the age 8-11 groups were whole numbers. Discrepancies in size of groups compared in table 2 must be taken into consideration, and is partly responsible for lack of statistical significance; however, it.is highly notable that taking the score "six or Below" (significant in table 1), 73.99% of the foster home group fell in this range while only 28.58% had "mean seriousness" scores of six or below. Clustering of scores is much more significant in table 2 than in table 1, considering that 17 out of 26 boys in the individual foster home age—group 12-15 (65.39%) had "mean seriousness" scores between three and six, while five of seven boys (71.44%) in the Boysfarm population had scores in the 2.5 to 9.5 range. Also notable is the fact that only twenty-six of the foster home boys had zero offenses. When the formula "mean seriousness of offense, weighted by age" (see hypothesis 1 in previous chapter) is applied, we find very little difference in the pattern of frequency distributions from those of "mean seriousness of offense". Distribution columns run in units of half-digits, from zero to 23.5, which increases the number of possible columns and creates a spreading effect; but although the distributions reported above are shifted, trends in the data remain unchanged. Total means are proportionately evened for the older boys, relative to the younger boys. Assuming the weights assigned are valid and meaning- ful, when age is considered, the original measure of "mean seriousness of offense" is altered to account for milieu changes with ago. An older boy is more independent and hence, normally has more opportunities -34- to act—out. Essentially, this means that an emotional problem which becomes manifest later in life will expectedly by accompanied by greater frequency of noticeable anti-social acts at its onset than would be expected for the analogous emotional problem developing earlier. An older boy, furthermore, has a better chance of obtaining access to implements involved in more "criminal" types of acts, such as weapons, increased knowledge and contact, in some cases, with other delinquents. For these reasons, statistical measures of "seriousness weighted by age" would seem a better overall indicator of degree of pathology than would non—weighted "mean seriousness." Interestingly, product moment correlations for the two measures are quite similar (mean seriousness = —O.638 for Whaley and Foster Home age-group 3, and -O.282 for Boysfarm and Foster Home age-group 4. Mean seriousness, weighted by age = -0.650 and -0.281, respectively). If we consider the trends found in the above-listed mean serious- ness of offense scores, certain inferences can be drawn. In both age groups, the institutional populations are characterized by greater ser— iousness of offense. There does not seem to be much difference in range of institutional seriousness scores with increase in age. Boys in the individual Foster Home population, however, tend to be characterized by increasing seriousness of offense with increasing age, and incidence of "no offenses committed" decreases very sharply at age twelve. Total "mean seriousness" decreases by 2.50 with increasing age-group in the institutional population (mean average of 7.07) while rising by 2.05 points (5.25, s.d. = 2.13) in the individual Foster Home population. Considering the role of the court, if our assumption that changes reflect court action is correct, we could infer that younger boys -35- with offenses tend more frequently to receive institutional treatment; however, two intervening variables must be considered. Whaley Home is a "treatment institution" by its own statement of purpose, including availability of individual psychotherapists. There thus exists the possibility that older boys considered in need of psychotherapy are sent to institutions outside of Genesee County, increasingly with age (not included in our data, but impressionistically this does seem to be the case). The second factor is that gross psychopathology would tend to show up earlier in a bcy's lifetime (we assume that "offenses" represent acting-out behavior), and is probably characterized by obvious instibility in the home situation, which would probably become known to the Court in other ways as well; for example, desertion of one parent, prostitution by the mother, etc. Such environmental instability, regardless of the increased probability of acting-out in children, would increase the incidence of institutional placement. More subtle forms of family pathology would probably not result in acting-out in children urtil a more advanced age—level has been achieved. Psychopathology might not be discernible by other than a trained observer before that age. "Age at first offense" was coded according to the age group (of the age—groups into which our populations were divided) into which the boy would have fallen at the time of first offense. The statistical measures were not significant; however, of the Whaley Home population four of the boys did not commit their first offense until reaching age eight, while three did so at ages five through seven. Of the five boys who had any offenses within age—group 8 through 11 of the individual foster home population, two had committed -36- their first offense when five through seven years of age, while three had done so within their current age-group. Of the Boysfarm population, one boy had committed his first offense at ages five through seven, two at ages eight through eleven and four at ages twelve through fifteen. Of the twenty-five boys with offenses in the foster home age-group twelve through fifteen, three committed their first offense at ages.five through seven, two at ages eight through eleven and twenty at ages twelve through fifteen. The frequency distribution of age at first offense among the older foster home group seems to be the only notable result of this calculation, as it is indicated that this group is qualitatively different from the other groups. The high frequency of relatively advanced age at first offense seems to back up our inferences about offenses increasing sharply at age twelve for this group, based on mean seriousness of offenses; however, the same cautions apply here as would for "mean seriousness". Seriousness of the first offense (offenses at first placement) merely confirmed the pattern of frequency distribution found in the measure of "mean seriousness of offense" over the entire period known to the court, although comparisons of association of this measure with placement at Whaley Home contrasted with foster home (ages eight through eleven) yielded an extremely high (for our study) product moment correlation of —O.338. For comparisons of this association, Boysfarm and Foster Home ages twelve through fifteen, the correlation was a non-significant -0.331. The first of these two correlations exactly matched that for "mean seriousness" in the same age—groups, in that (as was found in another test of association, "mean seriousness of offenses excluding first affense") not one boy in the Whaley population -37- had a single second offense, and only one boy with a mean score of six in the Foster Home (age eight through eleven) group had a second offense. The correlation for the same variable, Boysfarm contrasted with the Foster Home (age twelve through fifteen group was only -0.096. Three out of seven and eight out of twenty-six reSpectively, had no second offenses. Standard deviations were almost as large as total means in both cases. Measures of "frequency of offenses per year" were found to be relatively poor predictors of differential placement. For the entire period, product moment correlations were only -0.202 and 0.147. Means were 0.68 for the Whaley population (s.d. = .40); 1.45 for Foster Home ages eight through eleven (s.d. = .68), 1.50 for Boysfarm (s.d. 1.16); and 1.97 for Foster Home ages twelve through fifteen (s.d. 1.37). As the standard deviations indicate, there was a great deal of scatter in these frequency distributions. Partial explanation for this result (frequency a fraction of #1.00, with most boys in the Whaley Home popukttion and Foster Home (ages eight through eleven group having only one offense, and that occurring in 1965) could be our finding that three of the seven at Whaley and seven of the ten boys in the foster home age-matched group had at some time at least one instance of movement or placement for "Pathological Home situation" (not an offense); hence, with only oneoffense they were known to the court for a period exceeding one year. The proportion in the Boysfarm and Foster Home (age twelve through fifteen) groups was much smaller (two out of seven and four out of twenty-six, respectively) which showed up considerably, in a reverse direction of correlation. In the Foster Home age-group eight through eleven, only five -38- boys had offenses at all. For these boys, only one had a frequency of two offenses in 1965, the other boys having had only one each. Mean number of offenses in 1965, was 1.86 for the Boysfarm population (s.d. - 0.90) and 2.00 for the total Foster Home ages twelve through fifteen group (s.d. = 1.20). It should be remembered, however, that offenses in 1965 for the institutional population cannot be con- sidered a satisfactory measure, as generally speaking, institutional- ization would act as a deterrent of commission of offenses; hence, this would vary with date in 1965 on which a boy was admitted to Whaley Home or Boysfarm. Finally, this section would not be complete without a break- down into frequency of types of offenses committed by boys in each group. For the breakdown of offenses into type, number of incidents of each offense was computed for the entire period known to the Court and associated with type of placement by age. Two types of offense showed some degree of significance. For comparisons ofWhaley Home with Foster Home age-groups eight through eleven, incidence of "runaway or truancy" showed a correlation of -0.553, while incidence of "aggressive behavior" showed a correlation of -0.6Q8. This means that the incidence of placement at Whaley Homeincreases at this age group with increased incidence of these two types of offense. Six of the seven boys in the Whaley Home population had one incident of aggressive behavior (mean of .86, s.d. = .38). There were no repetitions. For the Foster Home age-group eight through eleven, two out of ten boys had one incident of aggressive behavior (mean of 0.20, s.d. = 0.42). "Runaway or truancy" occurred for three of the seven boys -39- in the Whaley population (mean = 0.43, s.d. -O.53). "Runaway or truancy" did not occur at all among the Foster Home (ages eight through eleven) group. Comparing these results with the twelve through fifteen age- groups, aggressive behavior was not associated with institutional placement here (correlation an insignificant -0.0.93); however, direction was the same. In the Boysfarm population two boys had one incident of this offense. Five of the twenty—six boys in;floster homes had one incident. There were no repetitions within this age- range. "Runaway and Truancy" had an insignificant correlation of 0.128 (reversal of direction) with institutional placement in age-range twelve through fifteen; however, for the foster home group there were as many as five repetitions (six occurrences) of this offense, with seven of the twenty-six boys having one incident, five with two incidents and two with three incidents. (One boy had four, one had five and one had six incidents. Mean = 1.46 s.d. - 1.63). In the Boysfarm population three boys had one incident of "runaway and truancy? while two boys had two incidents. (mean = 1.00, s.d. = 0.82). Other offenses showed high frequencies of incidence, but were not differentiated between the institutional and Foster Home groups (See Graphs). In summary, we can accept hypothesis 1 on the basis of sta- tistically significant correlations of mean seriousness of offenses, especially weighted for age, with institutional placement. This means that the Court tends to be "purposive" to the degree that frequencies and seriousness of offense are indicative of emotional and/or characterological disorder. -40- FIGURE I ' INCIDENCE 0F OFFENSES BY TYPE FOR WHALEY HOME & FOSTER HOKE (Age Group 8-11) Per Cent of Population 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 L l. J _L l —! ‘ 4 ’ I Stealing <;)/ /1 />// g I r !/:;:i:%:(::// //::) ) g I Aggressive \ Behavior ////C;/j:C:/( ' I I 3 ; : i I . , I * I I I Drunkeness * g ' - g i ? I : I I ' I I - = I I I ' I I I I I I f ‘ Y Running i t I E I JhJay' I I ‘ ' 8c , I ’ T ,. Truancy * I I i I I I I . Legend I f I ' A 1 z I ) Whaley Home : I 5 ‘ E I ‘ I I} .y, Foster Home Incorrig— ' 3 l t I ibility' i2ijij2::%:;// I I I . 4/‘ ' ‘ l * No Cases 3, i i I 3 i ‘ I I I I I I I I I E I Violating * ; t : I I Probation I ' I i I 7 I. ~ - 41- an... H, .- -- r-or o r—.o-—on?- \ . .. . _ -m .- .. ,, l..-.-.... .u.-... ‘ A ~ ‘ ; .., ‘. - . -.»-. .-, .c— or‘. . _ . ‘. ' . U i 'u l . p 'a Stealing Iggressive Behavior hunkeness hmning Away & Truancy Incorrigib- ility Violating robation FIGURE II INCIDENCE 0F OFFENSE BY TYPE FOR BOYPFARM & FOSTER H Per Cent of Population lI 20 30 4O 50 60 1 J I L L l J AA.- CHE (AGE GROUP 12-15) 70 80 I i {17/fo3 ////////// I .I I , I I K/"prx; .- . . _ // .x/_ I I ; I j ‘ I II! '. - v 6 f I . I, / lit‘fl/ / I I .' . , ‘ , I 1 -1 ‘ E I I I i . I ; .— - 3.x”...- .——- - . ..... ”org—.ms. —-. Ll ’ - -‘-s. Lil! \ \\ a -. .- -. --““.w~_-.--q.- . i42- * d a--. r-o—o - - a A _v. [: Boysfarm Fester Home No Cases \0 .- -...-_ .. -c-—--—~—~'-4- _.- - ._ -.‘- -l-‘ -— - ~..>- ,-» >- w.- :-- -qp—CI l \ 1 u ' ' II N - --- u I .0 ‘ ,- ‘ I . 1.. ..o-"". -‘ -‘. .-v—‘ I. i . '~' -‘0- -" ' ~Q“ .p HYPOTHESIS II attempts to test associations between type of placement and various social factors. Although marital status of parents was not significant for the chi—square test, the data shows that parents of most boys in the study fell in one of three categories; "married and living together," "divorced" or "separated or deserted", but frequencies were not cor- related with institutional vs. foster home placement, at any age level. Surprisingly to us, "socio-economic status" as measured by area of parental address had no statistical significance. Means for each group varied only between 4.29 and 5.00, with no notable clustering. "Education of mother" yielded a correlation with placement at Whaley Home vs. Foster Home, in age—group eight through eleven, of -0.415. Mothers of the boys in this age range in the Fester Home group ranged in educational level from less than eight grade through com- pletion of high school, with five (of the eight reported) having com- pleted between nine and eleven grades. The educational level of mothers was higher in the Whaley Home population, with the mothers of four out of seven boys completing twelve grades. There were no mothers of Whaley Home boys who had not completed eight grades. -u3- TABLE 3 EDUCATION-OF MOTHER FOR WHALEY HOME AND FOSTER HOME (AGE.GROUP 8-11) r Grades Age Group:8:11 A Completed 'rré Ethev Home Foster Home n % N % 1.f8 or 0 00.00 2 25.00 less 2. 8th 1 14.29 0 00.00 compl. 3. 9-llth 2 28.57 5 62.50 4. 12th 4 57.14 1 12.50 compl. 5. over 0 00.00 0 00.00 12 TOTAEVV ' Z_, 100.00 8 100.00 MEAN STANDARD 3.43 2.63 DEVIATION 0.79 1.06 The same variable, correlated with placement at Boysfarm vs. Foster Home (age-group twelve through fifteen) yielded a non-significant correlation of 0.245, tending in the opposite direction. Four (out of the five mothers of Boysfarm boys reported) had completed eighth grade or less, while fourteen of twenty—two mothers of the age-matched Foster Home group (63.64%) had completed nine or more grades. None of the mothers in either of the age-matched groups had gone beyond twelth grade. -44- ,.—-.o “ - -...~—.-"‘ C.) my" .-‘-,--.. «u.-.~ ‘0‘ "" .---—' " - . -. Ea-» ,..—.~' '.. __.. -" ."-.-I “A .. “.7 _.. -w—-l . , . -‘- " > .,.. . -- ' l 0 ~.‘.‘- _‘ ,. ._ 9 o w. -h“ _ a -o- "‘ -.‘ __ . ._-— _-,_ _- ‘_ -.—.-"" o ‘ “‘ l .. “g- .--- —“ .. - ,. . .. 0““ 0“ - o -'7 - o .m” TABLE 4 EDUCATION OF MOTHER FOR BOYSFARM AND FOSTER HOME (AGE-GROUP 12-15) Grades Age Grggpvlzrls - Completed i Boysfarm Foster Home IN 56 N I f l. 8 or 1 20.00 4 18.18—* less 2. 8th 3 60.00 4 18.18 compl. 3. 9-11th O 00.00 5 22.73 4. 12th 1 20.00 5 22.73 compl. 5. over i 0 00.00 4 18.18 12 TOTAL I; 5 100.00 7’22 I" 100.00 MEAN 'E "—2:20‘f *—’ __. "f3.05 STANDARD 1.10 1.40 DEVIATION "Education of father" yielded no significant chi—square scores, nor could any definite frequency distribution be discerned. It is notable that the father of one boy in the Boysfarm population, and of one in the age twelve through fifteen Foster Home group completed over twelve grades. No father of any boy in either of the matched age eight through eleven groups had done so. Although no significant correlation was discerned for "occupation of father," the single most frequent classification in all four groups was "operations," which includes all of the non-skilled labor types of employemnt. "Occupation of mother" yielded no significant chi-square scores; however, for all four groups in the ages eight through fifteen range, every mother with the exception of one (in the Whaley Home group, whose occupation was "clerica1") fell in one of three categories: "operations," "unemployed" or "A.F.D.C.". No distribution patterns could by easily discerned within these three categories. -45- -.... ‘---- .. an...“ ....r» .. .tMu-u a---“ y.-- . mo-“. . _.-.— ...-....-...-..—.-- a.- . : I C -¢—--Apor .. u. H I . ~-- .- _.._ I . mo- There was a significant chi-square for race (of 4.958, d.f.=l), contrasting the Whaley Home population (which contained no nonwhites) with the age eight through eleven Foster Home group, which contained five whites and five nonwhites.) Chi-square associating race with placement in Boysfarm (which had no nonwhites) vs. the age twelve through fifteen Foster Home group (with seven nonwhites of twenty—six boys, or 26.92%) yielded a statistically nonsignificant score of 2.392 (d.f.=l). Race is, of course, a nondiagnostic variable and may indicate a bias either in court placements or in the acceptance policies of one or both institutions. Religious affiliation yielded no significant chi-square scores. The greater frequency in all groups was Protestant, with one Catholic in the Whaley population, one Jewish and two with no affiliation, in the age eight through eleven Foster Home group, three Catholic and four no affiliation in the age twelve through fifteen Foster Home group. The Boysfarm population was composed completely of Protestants. Religion is, of course, non-diagnostically significant. "Number of children in the family" had a significant product- moment correlation comparing Boysfarm and Foster Home age-group twelve through fifteen (-0.450). This can be interpreted as predictive of a greater probability of placement at Boysfarm with increase in size of family for this age-group. Number of children ranged in the Boysfarm population from four through nine, inclusive. Frequency of six or more children in the family was 85.71%. In the age—matched Foster Home group, the range of frequencies for this variable ranged from oné through seven, inclusive, with no significant clustering. -46- TABLE 5 NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN FAMILY FOR BOYSFARM AND FOSTER HOME (AGE—GROUP 12-15) NEnber of AgLGr ‘ 12.15.; I 'T Chlldre" Boysfarm Foster Home N_ 2% - _L N 2% 1 "” “O‘ ' 00.00 ‘““ 2 7.69 2 0 00.00 4 15.38 3 0 00.00 4 15.38 4 1 14.29 3 11.54 5 0 00.00 4 15.38 6 3 42.86 5 19.23 7 1 14.29 4 15.38 8 1 14.29 O 00.00 9 1 14.29 O 00.00 TOTXD' “"' “17“' ‘100.00 ‘ 26 "1OO.OO MEAN “f“? 6.57 "' . 1 STANDARD 1.62 1.95 DEVIATION The correlation of this variable for Whaley Home compared with Foster Home age-group eight through twelve was non—significant (0.282), with reversal in direction of association. There was significant cluster, with 71.43% between scores of one and four for the Whaley population, while in the age—matched Foster Home group ninety percent ranged from four through Seven, inclusive. -u7- ‘-.-¢o ¢_-oo. . s..---. . . -.—-.' —-—...— ”~H.’ >— O . ........- - ,.._....-. . - g r . “I . '- ‘ I I I‘ do“..- w... aga..—_...L. »-ra.. ... ...—. - --~----'--- - -..--.o -- . g. .. .*-.w ' ' an.--m-I_n vId--.-..—’d 4“" --~ --.-0 .-.,..... “n.- » -- —o-—o.»..---q . . -. o - n . . b 0.... ..- o .. ~u~ . . n. .—q- . _. -- .-v---. ”moo-s... .- TABLE 6 NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN FAMILY FOR WHALEY HOME AND FOSTER HOME (AGE—GROUP 8—11) Number of Age Groun_8~ll Children Whalengome Foster Home N 3% '11" ' a; 'E'l' I 1 14.29 "30 I'00.00 2 1 14.29 1 10.00 3 2 28.57 0 00.00 4 1 14.29 2 20.00 5 0 00.00 4 40.00 6 1 14.29 2 20.00 7 0 00.00 1 10.00 8 l 14.29 0 00.00 9 0 00.00 ' 0 00.00 TOTAL 7 100.00 E 10*" EE100.00 MEANT 3.867 4:90 STANDARD 2.41 1.37 DEVIATION The trend would indicate that with increase in age-level, the institutional population comes increasingly from larger families relative to the Foster Home population. One implication might be that younger children are cushioned against pathological trends in larger families, but decreasingly so with increase in age. On the other hand, comparing this correlation with education of mother (possibly indicative of higher socio—economic status) implications may be that Whaley Home boys tend to come from higher socio—economic backgrounds than do Boysfarm boys, which may be associated with smaller family size. Sex ratio (number of female children/number of male children) was not significantly correlated with institutional vs. individual Foster Home placements at either age level; however, while there was no notable clustering pattern in the younger age-matched groups, there was a slight trend toward increased proportion of females in the families -48- -m- . -.._..... . . .. . - . *.~*-wwfi ... .0741.’ . .-....- o of Boysfarm pepulation compared with the Foster Home age twelve through fifteen group. Clustering was difficult to define. TABLE 7 SEX RATIO FOR WHALEY HOME AND FOSTER HOME (AGE-GROUP 8-11) ex _ Age 615011 8:11 - w atio Whale Home Foster Home % N % 1 2 25.00 1 10.00 2 0 00.00 3 30.00 3 2 25.00 0 00.00 4 0 00.00 0 00.00 5 1 14.29 3 30.00 6 0 00.00 1 10.00 7 l 14.29 2 20.00 8 0 00.00 0 00.00 9 1 14.29 0 g 00.00 TOTAL g;Z 100.00 10 100.00 MEAN 4.14 4.20 STANDARD 3.02 2.25 DEVIATION TABLE 8 SEX RATIO FOR BOYSFARM AND FOSTER HOME (AGE GROUP 12-15) Sex Age Group 12~15. Ratio Boysfarm Foster Home N 1 N 6 1 2 28.57 7 26.92 2 1 14.29 1 03.85 3 3 42.86 5 19.23 4 0 00.00 2 07.69 5 O 00.00 6 23.08 6 1 14.29 2 07.69 7 0 00.00 1 03.85 8 0 00.00 0 00.00 9 0 00.00 2 0?.69 TOTAL 7 100.00 26 100.00 MEAN 4.14 3.81 STANDARD 4.26 2.40 DEVIATION Ordinal position of boy was not significantly correlated with institutional vs. Foster Home placement by age-group, nor were there any clear clustering patterns of frequency. Although some interesting descriptive patterns are presented by the preceding data, generally statistical associations of these social variables with placement setting are at best quite weak. Evidence seems to indicate a significant legalistic bias by the court, inasmuch as associations of placement setting with frequency and seriousness of offense are comparatively very strong. Thus, characteristics of offenses rather than social factors seem to be more decisive in influencing court decisions of differential foster placement of boys. HYPOTHESIS III was set up to test associations between stability of placement and social factors. Calculations resulted in a paucity of statistically significant associations for the entire hypothesis. -50- The table, "mean length of time in placement prior to 1965, associated with marital status of parents" indicated that the lowest mean length of time in placement occurred among boys whose parents were married and living together, and the second lowest among boys whose parents were divorced. The highest mean lengths occurred among boys whose parents were separated or deserted. These are surprising results when one considers that the boys with, essentially, the least stability of placement (measured on this scale) came from homes which, on the surface, would appear least pathological (ie., compared with homes where the father deserted, etc.). Degree of scatter was extremely high for this table. For the association of marital status of parents with mean length of time in placement for the entire period known to the court, there is some evidence of clustering. Fifteen out of twenty-eight boys whose parents were married and living together had "mean lengths" ranging between one and two weeks, whereas thirteen out of twenty boys whose parents were divorced had "mean lengths" Between one and three weeks. Five out of ten boys whose parents were separated or deserted had averaged mean lengths of time in place- ment between 2.75 weeks and 3.25 weeks. Other frequencies were scattered, but the ranges were not sufficient to nullify these clust- erings within their respective categories. These were also the categories with the largest numbers of cases. Comparing these results with associations of marital status of parents with mean length of time in placement during 1965 (Foster Home group only), we find the trend identical with "mean length" prior to 1965, with one addition. The 1965 grouping included one boy whose parents were not married. His "mean length of time in placement" score -51- was the lowest (one to two weeks, indicating least stability of placement). Excluding this case (leaving categories identical with the "prior to 1965" table) we find the class with the lowest "mean length" the same class as in the "prior to 1965" table (approximately one month; "married, living together".) The highest class is "separated or deserted" here, too (mean = 3.2 months), and all classes follow in the same order as in "prior to 1965". (see table below). TABLE 9 MEAN LENGTH OF TIME IN PLACEMENT DURING (FOSTER HOME) AND PRIOR TO 1965 (ALL POPULATIONS) Marital Time in Placement during Time in Placement Prior Status 1965 (Fester Home) to 1965 (All Populationsl__ N Mean* N Mean* Married 22 00.82 9 03.22 Living Together Marriage 4 01.76 2 08.50 intact, not living together Mother dead 3 01.34 1 07.50 Parents is 01.34 8 04.80 Divorced Parents 8 03.44 6 10.32 Separated or Deserted Unmarried l 00.25 0 00.00 TOTAL 53 08.91 26 34.34 *calculated in months. -52- a...- .—- "cm-— ....- c- -..--.....—o-—. ‘— ..-..—..-. .——_-m.-------¢—--s-¢*._ ._ - . .pm——.-—— . . ..—-..¢-.-.- . a . O I a I a ‘ o - .1. , g-..—o- ~ .....-..--.... roc-Q4. .. .. ..-.-.-..—.-~.—a-—o--.. ., 0 ...~--_._‘_- -~—-—--—..—.—.a.o—~—o.-oooo. .u—v-cvv- . - - _ v , , ., . .-. -- —-.—-~.-.-. - -— hw—fi... Thus, it seems indicated that boys whose parents are separated or deserted will have the greater mean length of time in placement, followed in order by those whose parents are married but not living together, mother dead, parents divorced, parents married and living together, and parents never married. Education of father was very poorly associated with mean length of time in placement, showing no clustering or correlative trends. The only regularity, both prior to 1965 and during 1965, was that boys whose father had completei school grades eight or less had the lowest‘ mean length of time in placement. No significant findings were made for association of "mean length of time in placement" with education of mother. We found that boys whose siblings had court records consistently had significantly lower mean lengths of time in placement, for all populations. (Entire period known to the Court, 5.23 vs. 4.37; prior to 1965, 7.44 vs. 5.48; during 1965/Foster Home only/, 4.46 vs. 3.97). Although there is no perfect sequence in mean length of time in placement as associated with number of children in family, if we take an average of each three sequential means, the averaged mean scores follow a sequence from lesser to greater length of time in placement with increase in family size. This is shown in tables l9, ll, and 12,'below. -53- TABLE 10 MEAN LENGTH OF TIME IN PLACEMENT PRIOR TO 1965 (ALL POPUIATIONS) No. of Children Mean time in Placement Mean in Family prior to 1965* Averaged'k 1 1.5 mos. . 2 7.8 mos. 4.8 mos. .3 ___________ 53E® ________________ " 4 7.0 mos. 5 5.3 mos. 6.2 mos. 6 _._...__.§13.EQ§2_ _______________ _‘-7 ——————— 9.8 mos. 8 3.0 mes. 6.6 mos. 9 7.0 mes. TOTAL 7 " J23 Es. 7 717.6 mg. *Means are Approiimate TABLE 11 MEAN LENGTH OF TIME IN PLACEMENT DURING 1965 (FOSTER HOME) No. of‘ Children Mean time in Placement Mean in family Durinil965 Avergged IV— 1.2 mos. ’7 7 ‘7“ 47 2 1.0 mos. 1.1 mos. 3 0.9 mos. _______ ""4'"'""'-'_'—'-'_'_'70:97m5s:' ————————— 5 2.1 mos. 1.6 mos. 6 2.0 mos. _"'7- _________ _4:3'm53:' ———————————————— 8 4.0 mes. 2.0 mos. 9 _ _ an TOTAL l6.4-mos. 4.7 mes. *Means are approximate **Average of two (7 & 8 children) -5u- TABLE 12 MEAN LENGTH OF TIME IN PLACEMENT ENTIRE PERIOD KNOWN TO COURT (ALL POPULATIONS) No. of Children Mean time in placement Mean in Family Entire Period* Averaged* v l 1.9 mos. 2 1.8 mos. 1.8 mos. _ __ 3_ 1.6 mos. W4 _'_’7' ------- “2:2'Eaer‘ ————————————— 5 2.9 mos. 2.5 mos. 6 2.5 mos. " _ '7 ----------- 3.5'r’n'oé'. ------------- 8 3.7 17103. 309 mos. 9 4.5 mos. TOTAL 24.7 mos. 8.2 mos. *Means are approximate Family sex ratio associated with mean length of time in placement showed an interesting trend for the period, "prior to 1965" (combined populations and age-groups). The measure used to arrive at "sex ratio" was female children/male children X 4. It was found that the higher the sex ratio (ie., the more female-dominant the family), the lower was the mean length of time in placement. Scores did not follow in perfect sequence; however, the trend became apparent when "sex-ratio" scores one through four and five through eight were averaged (yielding "mean lengths" of 5.4 months and 4.26 months, respectively). "Mean length" for sex-ratio of nine was 2.0 months, and for sex-ratio of thir- teen was 1.34 months. There was no incidence of sex-ratio scores ten through twelve. When sex—ratio was associated with mean length of time in place- ment during 1965, however, Fester Home population only, there was a tendency toward trend-reversal, and the association for "entire period known to the Court" showed no particular pattern. Because we are -55... dealing in relatively small numbers, the increased possibility of chance could either establish or reverse a trend. We feel it is certainly worth noting, and possibly testing for in further studies. The diagnostic implications concern the effects of being a boy in a family where girls are dominant, and the consequences in terms of sexual identification and emotional stability. "Ordinal position" associated with "mean length of time in placement for prior to 1965 showed a trend toward increase of "mean length" with progressive ordinal position, running from a "mean length" of 4.76 months for oldest children, to a "mean length" of 7.58 months for fifth children (the maximal position occurring here), scores for third, fourth and fifth children clustering between 7.50 and 7.58 months (though third children had a slightly greater "mean length" than did fourth children). The same table for 1965 (Foster Home only) showed the same trend when mean length scores for first and second children were averaged, with the exception of fourth children, who had the lowest "mean average" score. Admittedly, discerning the sequence here involved some statistical manipulation, but in light of our small numbers any evidence of consistency of such a trend should be noted unless obviously reversed or far—fetched. The diag— nosic implications of ordinal position concern sibling rivalry, parental pressures generally directed toward older children, or parental neglect, generally of older children by parents with limited emotional resources. Although the association of "mean length of time in placement" with "whomboy lived with before placement" is not part of the stated hypothesis, the table for these variables showed that boys who were -56- living with either both parents, or one parent and a step-parent had the two lowest "mean lengths", both in 1965 (Foster Home only) and prior to 1965. Boys who had been placed from child care institutions had the highest "mean frequency" during 1965, and this classification was relatively high (third highest, of seven classifications) on the "prior to 1965" table. On the latter table, the highest "mean frequency" occurred for the classification "adoptive parents, guard- ian, step—father," which had a frequency of only one boy. It is unfortunate that the classification is so vague, as the "mean length", is an extremely high "one year or more," a full two months greater than the second highest score, but the low frequency detracts from the significance of this observation, Other scores tended to be scattered for this table.‘ The tables associating socio-economic status by address of parental residence, with mean length of time in placement showed a total lack of clustering of scores, and absolutely no repetition of relative degrees for any single category. This result was unexpected as we had assumed socio-economic status to be highly associated with stability of placement. No explanation can be offered except the possible fallaciousness of our assumption. The other measure of socio-economic status, occupation of parents, yielded few meaningful associations. It was found that boys whose fathers were unemployed had relatively high mean lengths of time in placement, as did boys whose mothers were recipients of public assist- ance (AFDC), both during and prior to 1965. The explanation for this results may lie in the probably high incidence of "pathological home situation" in both instances. Such association was not tested for, -57- and in retrospect it would have been a wise item of data to seek. Over sixty percent of the boys in each table had fathers who were engaged in "operations" (mainly, nonskilled labor), but "mean length" scores were not consistent with each other for that category within the two tables. In the "occupation of mother" table, the category "professional and technical", was associated with the highest "mean length" score prior to 1965, but had no incidence in the 1965 table, possibly because the only boy for whom this class fit was not part of the Foster Home population (concerning whom "mean length" was computed for 1965). The "clerical" and "crafts and foreman" class contained no frequencies in 1965, as they had prior, for "occupation of mother". The association of religious affiliation with mean length of time in placement yielded no consistenttendencies between the "prior to 1965" and "during 1965 (Foster Home)" tables. Race, similarly, showed no consistency from "prior to 1965" to "during 1965", showing a reversal in tendencies from one table to the other. In summary, hypothesis III yielded some significant observations when the data was viewed closely, despite a lack of significant statistical scores. Small numbers in our populations, especially when these were divided into placement and age-matched groupings, have hindered our decisiveness about implications, notably about the relevancy of our findings to the subject of Court functioning. -58- HYPOTHESIS IV will test associations with length of time in placement, of age, intelligence quotient scores and school grades normal or retarded. The chi-square scores and product-moment correlations were insignificant for all of the tests. For all age-groups, there was no notable clustering of mean length of time in placement, either for entire period known to the Court, or for 1965. There is some ind- ication of discontinuity of placement-stability between boys under twelve years of age and those above twelve, since age—group three (ages eight-through eleven) had the highest average mean length of time in placement during 1965 (approximately 2.8 months), and age—group four (ages twelve through fifteen) had the lowest (approximately one month). There was an increase in mean length of time in placement during 1965 from age—group two (ages six through eight, mean of approximately 1.5 months) to age—group three, and an increase from age—group four to age-group five (with a mean of approximately 1.25 months), while age-group three had a mean of approximately 3.1 months. Age-group five (ages 16) again fell between the scores for groups three and four, with a mean of 1.6 months. Age-group two had the highest score for this measure, however, with a mean of about 3.6 months. The 1965 figures are for the individual Foster Home group only, whereas the figures for "entire period known to the Court" are for all three populations. The effect of this factor is not known. The proportional increase in relative mean length of time for age-group two when measured over the entire period known to the Court probably reflects the high -59- proportion of pathological.home situation incidence within increasing acting-out with passage of time. Association of mean length of time in placement during 1965 with 1.0. revealed some interesting trends. The mean for boys with the lowest I.Q. socres (59—69) was about 3.66 months, the second highest mean (entire period known to Court). The highest mean for the same measure was for the one boy with the highest I.Q. score (125), 5.1 months. There was discontinuity of means for I.Q. subgroups, classified by categories of ten-digit ranges in scores, the discon- tinuity occurring coincidentally at the 100 score. Except for the lowest group, no other group with scores below 100 had "mean length" averages of above 1.06 months, while no group with I.Q. scores above 100 had a "mean length" average of below 1.60 months. Overall average "mean length" score for boys with 1.0. below 100 was approximately 1.65 months (including the high 59-69 "mean length"), while the averaged mean length score for boys with 1.0. scores of 100 and above was 2.84 months. This would seem to indicate some degree of relationship between increased stability of placement (measured in "mean length of time") and increase in 1.0.. Such a relationship is reinforced by associating "mean length of time in placement prior to 1965" and I.Q. The mean length of time for boys with I.Q. scores below 100 was approximately 3.77 months, while the mean for boys with 1.0. of 100 or above was 6.16 months. This relationship could not be tested for mean length of time in placement during 1965; however, the boy with the lowest mean 1.0. score had the highest "mean length of time" score in that table (six months), while the boy with the highest I.Q. score -60- In was one of three boys (all I.Q. of over 100) in the second highest "mean length" category, five months. Mean length of time in placement during 1965, for all the boys who had I.Q. scores (the variable, "mean length of time in placement during 1965," was calculated only for boys in the Foster Home population) averaged approximately 1.2 months. Finally, although no significant clustering could be noticed in the tables associating "mean length of time in placement" with "school grades, normal or retarded", these boys who had achieved normal grade for age at school had the highest total "mean length of time in placement during 1965," with an average score of two months. The boys who were retarded three school grades had the lowest total "mean length" scores, as associated with grades retarded, which fell between one month and five weeks. In summary, while we are unable to accept this hypothesis on the basis of statistical scores, there is nonetheless evidence of a definite relationship between stability of placement and each of the variables for which such associations were tested. Mere adequate statistical tests than those used here might establish these relationships. HYPOTHESIS V attempts to test the degree of association between whether the occurrence, at any time, of "pathological home situation" as a reason for movement or placement has any effect on court action, from a diagnostic standpoint. -61- pathological home situation was negatively associated with whether psychological tests were administered (chi-square = 3.980, d.f.=l), which undoubtedly reflects the legalistic, rather than diagnostic approach of the Court. Of the forty-five boys without incidence of "pathological home situationJ'twenty-six (57.78%) received psychological tests, whereas only seven (31.82%) of the twenty-two boys who had an incidence of pathological home situation received psychological tests. Viewing the results of hypothesis I, showing that frequency and ser- iousness of offense are largely causative factors in affecting Court action (placement), this result is not surprising, but apparently it indicates that Court action is focused on behavior rather than on other diagnostic considerations. There was no significant chi—square score for association of "pathological home situation" with whether psychiatric examinations were administered; however, only 9.09% of the boys with occurrence of "pathological home situation" received psychiatric examinations, compared with 22.22% of boys with no occurrence of "pathological home situation." An extremely significant association was found to exist between whether siblings had a Court record, and occurrence of "pathological home situation" (chi-square = 2b.?6, d.f.=l), nineteen of the twenty- two boys with "pathological home situation" (86.36%) having siblings with a court record, compared with ten of the forty—five boys without such a reason for movement or placement. Fifteen of these eighteen boys with "pathological home situation" (81.82%) had siblings placed outside of the home, compared with five of forty-five boys without such reason for movement or placement (11.11%) yielding a chi-square score of 32.77, d.f.=1. -62- A significant association (chi-square = 37.53, d.f.=21) was found to exist between "frequency of placements per year, entire period known to the Court" and occurrence of "pathological home situation;" showing mean frequency of two placements per year or less, as compared with 44.44%, for boys with no occurrence of "pathological home situation". Mean frequency for boys having "pathological home situation" was 2.15, compared with 3.22 for other boys. Similarly, although chi-square is not significant, boys with occurrence of "pathological home situation" had a slightly higher mean length of time in placement during 1965 (4.55 contrasted with 4.25 for boys without "pathological home sit- uation"). There VJS no notable clustering for the latter measure. The fact that a pathological home situation is usually as patho— logical for siblings as well as boys in our study would lead us to expect that siblings would be placed outside of the home; however, the higher degree of stability of placement for boys with "pathological home situation" is especially interesting. 0n the one hand, such a boy might not act—out, depending partly upon age at time of placement. Diagnostically it would seem that such boys have a higher probability of eventually developing behavioral problems. It also seems that parental pathology would exist from the time such boys are very young, and this would increase the chance of earlier detection of emotional problems. This might indicate that such boys, if the occurrence of pathological home situation corresponds to a longer period known to the court, may have a lesser degree of emotional pathology than that which results from more "subtle" family pathology over a longer period or time. -63- In general, it does not seem as though the Court responds therapeutically to the occurrence of "pathological home situation", especially seen in the lower frequency of psychological tests administered among such boys. HYPOTHESIS VI attempts to test whether there is a relationship between the Court's having followed recommendations of psychological and/or psychiatric reports, and various social factors. There was a significant chi-square score for the association of whether recommendations were followed, with marital status of parents. Sixty percent (three of five) of the parents of boys for whom rec- ommendations were "followed in full" were divorced, as were 39.13% of the parents of boys for whom psychological examinations were not followed. Nine sets of parents of boys for whom recommendations were "followed in part" (75%) were married and living together, as were ten sets of parents (out of twenty-three) of the boys for whom recommendations were not followed, and twenty percent (one in five) of parents of boys for whom recommendations were "followed in full". Two parents of boys for whom recommendations were "followed in part" (16.67%) were separated or deserted. Despite the significant chi- square score, however, the distribution of frequencies does not appear to suggest any definite clustering pattern. Socio-economic status was not significantly associated with whether the recommendations were followed, nor could any clustering pattern be observed. There was no significant chi-square score for association of race with whether recommendations were followed, nor was there any for religious affiliation. -64- There was no significant correlation between "grades normal or retarded" and whether recommendations were followed by the Court. Similarly, I.Q. was not significantly associated with whether recom- mendations were followed. One further measure, occupation of father (although not part of the hypothesis) was statistically highly associated with whether or not recommendations were followed. Sixty percent of the fathers of boys for whom recommendations were "followed in full" were engaged in sales. It is difficult, if not impossible, to draw any type of overall conclusion about the effects of variables tested in this hypothesis. This seems to suggest that the Court does not consistently follow any guidelines based on occurrence of social phenomena listed, in using recommendations of psychological or psychiatric reports to effect decisions for placemnt. Obviously, the number of intervening variables here is high. Availability of an opening at some institution, or of an appropriate Foster Home placement when needed is beyond the Court's control. Such a condition may represent poor local community organ- ization and referral techniques, an insufficient number of adequate facilities or an insufficiency of public funds available to finance institutional care. On the other hand, it may indicate either unwillingness to act on the basis of diagnostic information or a paucity of sufficiently skilled personnel capable of using diagnostic reasoning. It should be added that uncritical acceptance of some recommendation from a psychiatric or psychological report, isolated from other realistic considerations, is fully as fallacious, pro— cedurally, as is disregard of such recommendations. -65- The test of HYPOTHESIS VII shows that of these boys in the Foster Home population who were given psychological or psychiatric examinations, the group for whom recommendations were "followed in full" had the largest number of placements in 1965 (mean of 5.4), while that group for whom recommendations were "followed in part" had the smallest number of placements in 1965 (mean of 3.0). Clust- ering seemed significant, in that fifty-four percent of the boys for whom recommendations were "followed in full" had seven placements in 1965. Seventy-five percent of those for whom recommendations were "followed in part" had one, two, or three placements. Boys for whom recommendations were not followed at all had a mean of 3.20 placements in 1965, although the mode (35%) was two placements, while eighty percent had between one and four placements in 1965. The hypothesis must be rejected. This result is unexpected, although not surprising when considering that only thirty—seven boys of the fifty—three in the Foster Home population were given either psychiatric or psychological tests. As previously stated, it is our feeling that each boy known to the Court should automatically receive a psychological test. In practice, only these boys who show alarmingly pathological behavior apparently receive psychological examinations. This means that independently of Court action these boys for whom psychological examinations are most apt to be followed would probably have a lesser degree of stability in placement. -66- CHAPTER IV CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Limitations Early in this writing we attempted to state some major assumptions underlying the design of our research. This project attempts to determine the Court's effectiveness as a "therapeu- tic" agency, through the study of court records. Essentially, it was assumed that this cculd be accomplished. As the data were processed and results evaluated, we more and more came to question the efficacy of our assumptions. The basic problem seems to lie in our inability to determine which factors are in the control of the court, and which are beyond such control. Our original mode of reasoning in light of the data gathered might be exemplified as follows: We are to View some factor as "parents of 'boy X' separated," which we know to be potentially a source of emotional instability. We wish to see whether the Court responds to this factor, and court "responsiveness" can be inferred from the stability of a placement directed by the Court, affecting 'boy X.‘ Perfect Court responsiveness, based on aware- ness of emotional implications of the social (or psychological) factor, is effective therapy; hence, will result in greater stability of placements. The problem is that, in part at least, the same measure which is used to test the Court's therapeutic effectiveness also -67- attempts to test the degree of the boy's psychopathology. It is therefore difficult, if at all possible, to extract cause and effect relationships. This does not mean that our study is any less meaningful or valuable than it would have been had it accomplished its originally-defined purpose. Rather, as we have become more familiar with our data, we have come to realize that our implica- tions have more to do with the effects of social, psychological and behavioral factors on the stability of boys in foster place- ments, than they have to do with the effectiveness of the Court's functioning as a therapeutic agency. We believe that our confu- sion concerning cause-effect relationship between the problem and the Court's intervention is one aspect of a general confusion concerning cause and effect in psychotherapy; that is, whether either "movement” or "recidivism” is caused by intervention of the therapist or by internal agents of growth or regression. The beholder of any study brings to that study his own biases and viewpoints regarding its implications. That the per- former of such a study as the present one is obliged to speculate on its implications stems from his assumed sophistication about the context of data gathered, supposedly his primary field of knowledge. Our knowledge of juvenile courts has been based on experiences, as outsiders, in personal court contacts. Each one of us has been led to alter his impressions in the course of this study. The original assumptions seem, in retrospect, to have been based on our own biases and viewpoints. That implications about the Court's functioning as a therapeutic agency are possible -68- on the basis of at least some of our data cannot be denied; Zhowever, where the implications tend at best to be indirect, we do not believe their exposition to be our legitimate concern. We have, in the course of this study, proceeded to deliber- ately gather more data than we know would be applicable to a single research project. This was done with the prospect in mind of possibly using some of the data for future studies. We decided to focus the research extensively on the subjects of Court action diagnostically relevant factors, and the effects of both on differential placements in foster settings. Such a study, if possible, might have considerable theoretical significance. Given our time limitations, the demands of other academic respon- sibilities and our relative inexperience in performing research, we were forced to limittflmascope of our study considerably. The project has remained relatively extensive in its scope. It is the type of study which might command a span of years, with a well-trained staff and adequate financing. Unfortunately, none of these things was available to us. Because of our dearth of facilities and time, it was necessary to adhere to realistic limits in the time-consuming work of data-gathering. The identi- cal research design might well have been applied to a larger sampling of Court subjects, or to cumulative data concerning analogous populations from more than one juvenile court. As a result of these limitations the small number of research subjects renders our data of only limited statistical significance, regard- less of the variety of tests which might have been drawn upon. Rather than the ideal goal of using data to make general predic- tions about boys placed by courts in differential foster settings, -69- we must content ourselves with having suggested the directions of possible trends. This in itself seems a meaningful goal. Implications Our study showed (Hypothesis I) that both institutionalized groups had higher averaged mean seriousness of offense scores than did the age-matched foster home groups. This is to be expected, as generally speaking institutional placement at both Boysfarm and Whaley Home is viewed by the Court as a means of treatment for disturbed behavior, either emotionally or "socially" (the stated aims of Boysfarm being the provision of "an experience in group living" for boys who "are having difficulty adjusting in their home, school or community," see section entitled "Purpose and Aims of the Study," in Chapter I). When, in Hypothesis II, we found relatively low associations of placements with (diag- nostically relevant) social factors, we concluded that the sig- nificant findings of the first hypotheSis indicate a definite legalistic bias on the Court's part. Such a finding is far from surprising, nor does this necessarily indicate that diagnostic reasoning is absent. Such a "legalistic" approach is very much in keeping with the traditions of courts generally. As posed in Chapter 1, the major question is really the degree to which diagnostic thinking is integrated with the traditional legalistic approach. The paucity of associations for HypotheSis II, if our underlying assumptions are plausible at all, might indicate a low degree of such integration. This situation is probable, if the Genesee County Juvenile Court is characterized by the same difficulties as are many juvenile courts (see our review of literature, in Chapter 1). Our own theoretical framework leads -70- us to feel that a change in this regard is necessary. The system 'which we would advocate is the development of a family court, in ‘which not only would a diagnostic approach be as much the starting- point as is the traditional legalistic process but in which the Court would provide social and other counseling services within its own framework. A number of such systems exist, in which family problems are not separated in theory from the specific problems of juveniles. A few other findings sharply suggest pitfalls of the existing legalistic approach of the Court. Most striking, perhaps, is the Court's apparent lack of use of diagnostic procedures in dealing with boys from "pathological homes" who have not committed offenses. In the families of such boys we frequently encounter the type of gross pathology which, if its effects are not counter- acted, will frequently result in pathological behavior on the part of the boy. We feel that providing for the "welfare" of such children (by a foster home placement, for example) without attempting to determine how much psychological damage has occurred as a result of exposure to the pathological home, represents a failure of the Court to meet its full responsibility. Generally speaking, only a small proportion of the boys in our study had psychological testing at all. This shows that the Court has essentially no way of understanding the psychological meaning of behavior which has brought a boy to its attention, other than findings which emerge from the Court hearings them- selves. We feel that an agency, entrusted by society with the fullest authority to deal with problem behavior in the interest -71.. of the community, has an implied responsibility to be aware of all essential factors in carrying out this function. A court which is prepared to deal only with the symptoms of problems is not operating in the long-range interests of the community. Implied in the points expressed here is, perhaps, a new definition of the Court's role. The statute which established the Juvenile Court is stated in such a way as to be flexibly interpreted to fit new situations which may arise from societal change. If the Court's structure and resources are not so con- stituted as to meet current community needs, then the structure and resources must undergo a process of change toward greater adequacy. The modern juvenile court, if it is to reflect present sophisticated thought, must be a fully equipped therapeutic facility. Impressionistic Findings In viewing Court records we encountered problems arising from qualitative factors. The adequacy of these records varied in terms of their completeness. Social histories, for example, were generally so poor that we had to alter our original plans in data collection. We were unable to consistently obtain infor— mation about the marital history of parents, developmental histo- ries of subjects, family background, health histories and school adjustment reports. School reports were generally cursory, con- taining only school grades and attendance histories. The compilation of adequate social histories is primarily the responsibility of the court worker, who is considered a -72- "social worker." We were aware of the.quality of information which we would consider adequate in providing social services, and in very few cases did a record approach our standards. Personally, we felt that if such records were meant to provide a basis of social information for the use of judges in reaching decisions, this spoke very poorly for the orientation a judge must receive. There was little evidence that parents were ever referred by the Court to community resources for their own problems, although we know that frequently a child's pathological behavior is a symptom of the parent's problems. Either this was not generally recognized, as there was a marked reluctance on the Court's part to deal with parental problems. This implies that the professional approach of providing for treatment of the "whole person" either directly or by referral, is not followed by the Court. Reflections It seems appropriate to sum up some of the things we learned about the performance of research, as a result of this study. Mentioned above is the ambiguity of results which one attempts to infer by tenuous assumptions. We generally came away from the study with the conviction that a direct approach to the subject under study yields the most explicit and intelligible results. Originally we had planned, in accordance with our objectives of studying the "therapeutic" approach of the Court, to do some supplemental research interviewing and perhaps some systematic observations, if possible, of the Court decisions process. These -73- plans were abandoned due to time limitations, at some expense to our research focus. Our research schedule was developed more in accordance with our study objectives than with any degree of sophistication in research techniques, with the result that information which might have been available to us was not gathered. We came to regret, for example, that more detailed descriptions of offenses were not available as a basis for evaluating the data, especially since it became expedient to find measures of "seriousness of offense." The arbitrary ranking used are far from satisfactory for analytic purposes. Finally, we have become much more familiar with the meaning of research methods and the status of techniques, as a result of our experience. We approached this operation believing that statistical tests had some innate and "mystical" power in and of themselves, and came away realizing that the use of statistics is not the basis of research, but a research tool to verify observations; that the "real" research is not a matter of finding shortcuts, but rather, it comes of finely observing the qualities and behavior of the data, wrestling to find some objective meaning in it, and struggling to describe one's thoughts concern- ing it, clearly and meaningfully. Appendix I MAP 8: CENSUS TRACTS IN FLINI, ACCORDING TO COMPOSITE SCALF OF SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS (WA/m ., Sac/41 Acme/£5 «KY/Mfr CIMJIIm/Y . cam; I’M/227‘ Av; (9%Kk/7WMfiiCflfiQU‘ Appendix I MAP C.- CENSUS TRACTS IN GENESEE COUNTY, ACCORDING TO COMPOSITE SCALE OF SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS . ..'.:.:.:.'.: :‘z D. 5 1 b'.:‘ ."' ' ': : I o .C'0.0.I.I.I.I'O'l.0.|-I.O.l. |.C.U.n.I'I.-.0:0-I.I'I.I.I.I'I.I‘I.'...I:. . ' .I':. :I :5: 'J "-: - : 6 20:“§§,§:’=‘:=:::z=-=:- " Rik-t ‘t 2322': :‘T-fizififi '3;1:1:1:3:3:3:3:1: .‘a . . :3:3:3:23:1?:-:3:313:3:3:323:3:?:3:3:3:-: . 24 "55: .3 ‘.-'v' - :- .- -' ' .' ':'.""'::': ...... 9:. fi'l’I‘I‘I'i'PI'? 'I-I-I'I'I'I'I'I-Z°Z-I-I°I-I-I'I'I'Z' '2'Z°I'I'I'I'3-I-I°I'3'.C‘I'I'Z’I’Ifiii‘fiii'2'??? ‘ .-; ’ '. " " :' ‘ ‘: I 2 . - I -, ”335: ::=:-:- ' '-::.- :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:~:-: :-:-:-:-:-:-:-;-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: :-:-:-;-:-:.:-:-:-:-:~:-:-:-:-:-:-:.:~:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: $55-33:3:i.3:3°-'::-:-$',:,:$§‘E:;::' -:: - I .- .:....:'.I.O.I.0.0 .............. D'I'..I... .u:ocvo::c-nun:::: c::oo:uc-o::c:o--:o:c:::o:n: ....:...........I 'I.:':'.........-...'...' I . . ... g...- .......... I: ....... I ........................................................................................... . .. ....... 0.0.0.... I O...’-:-. 4...... l '0 I . ‘3‘: o 3 0M ................................................................................................................................. ....~....~o.o OM. . .0. . .5. I .4..'...} .:::.:'.%-.('.0 ........ ' I‘D’o’o‘o'c'..c. o. .'~.o'o.o-c.o.-'u.u-n-o.u...o.-.'.- CID-I.I.I.I...I.Q.I.O.I.I.I...0.0.0.0...1-0...O.C.O...... :. ..... . :............ a}...0:l........:.:.:. I . . '39:“: 5‘ 30102-3 :: 'Z'Z'I'3-I'Z°2°Z I I 3‘: I Z '3 I I I I 2.: I I I I I_I I 2.2 1: I 2.: I}; 1.: I I I I I I I 2: 25:36: :9:034-3I’"-:°:"':°.':'.::::::55:55 gr. : . ' it'dk.’ .:%‘:..'.".. z‘ ................................................................................................ .: .'.:.:.:.. o:.:.'.:-:.:.::.o.o.o.u::'l:fipi:fi.'i' j .0 0"... oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo '-.0.o.o . . . . . . - I - 1:. km 3.::>:::I:I:O.I.Q.: O O .1 E : :u:-:':o:.:. :a:o:n:u:c:a:-:o:o:o:o:o:c:o:a:o:o: . :o:o:c:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:-:I:o:-:o:o:o:o:.:.:u;o:.:o:o:.§ . .r'.:::::.. 5:Eé:.:i:§§:$::$::§; .¢: 5-: I!- ’. . . . Q. .0.0‘O. .0. C V... . . :‘ .o.o:‘:.;o.n:o: o:.:a:.:u:I:I:O:C:-.c:o:I:I:O:0:..0.0 o:¢:0:.:o:-:l:t;0:I:I:C:O:O:0:C:I:I:w:I:I:I:.:I:D:O:O: . . ... :0 O I I O I C'. I I -:5 I:.:E:E:§:::E:::.:.::.. . .0 I O I :‘I.I:O: E:.:...-...:..... -..."..I.O'I.I...l.:...l.O.I’I.O' ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo "..§ . :::.:E : 'zEs:E E;E.::::::.’::::E:E:E:.::?$;E: . I I . . . '0'... .. ........................................................................................................ ... g . . ... . . '-:_-f'\':':':':':’::::{-2-}: ' ' ° '- . . :: ;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;..._ - ~ ~ ' - - ° - ’ - ;.;.;.:.:.;.;.; ;.;.:.;.;.;.;.;.:.;.;.:.;.;.;.:.;.;.:.;.;.:.;.;.;.;.;. ° '. o:;.::: 3.":5: ;. 4:3. -:-'-::'.::::::..::" -.0:I:O:O:°:':'::.'.'.°o°o° ....... 0 .1 b ....................................................................................... I D :.:.:. . '.:-..'o:o'o:o.o:£::.o.:.:.0.:...::' ' ' ' ' . .o.o.o. ........ O ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' O . .. ' . .0 . I... O .r .::::.-:.:.:.;::.:: .................... : ::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: .;.;.;.:.;.;.;. .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:._.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: .. 55?. . . ::::-::.:::.::' :.;...:.:...::.::::::. | 000...... . O I. .5... c on . . . . .0...I. ....................................................................................................................................... .... . . . . ... . . . . d’.‘.':.:'.. ....I . 'I...I. '0 I ............................. I ................................................................................................................ ‘- .’ 'g’.‘ '0' 'I'I a o o o o 1:50... L' I :0. $.50“: ............ :0 ’ ...................................................................................................................... ° ' ° 0.. . 0:0:o:o:o:n.o:u.o.n.:.u o ‘ c a o o p ........................................................ . l .0 ' ' "‘3'3'1‘3: mwmizizitizifi :313:1:3:3:1:3:3:- .¥:1;?:-:-:-:-:-:-: '- 5:3'3:=:-:="':"':" ccccccc i , . . . - . . . . . .O‘I.O.I..... . ... ... I O ... I O . ° ;.:;:;:-:':-:-. a M m -. 63w" 2 z ::-:-:-:«:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:- t 9'? 2:29;: -°-:':" {5' :;:-:":: 9? . o o o ':':'.'. ' :'l 'L': ' . ‘ I 5 - . '0'. .................................. 0:...:I.0:.: fig. .. ..:..::.:..5.::':b.:... ................ V I . 1 0:... . ' '4'... :o:p:a:-:o:‘:o-o:-:u:.:o:o:l:-:-:o:.: O .;.l . .. . . .... .:.:.:.:.:.:.: .z. :- :. : I ;.;. ~ . :::.:.:::.::: . ................................................ .E:::::::::E:fl:::i.~: :. .§.:. .z}.%.::.:::2:5:5::. :-:-;-:..~:-:-'-:-:- -:£-’ 2 $5322; ........................... :.;.;-:-:-:-: {$5 ' ' ' ' . 93.33.35. “ii-3'???3+???- -------------- -:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-.-.. . . .- '-:::-:-::=:‘-'. . ooooooooooooooooooooo Q Q I I O l o O I 0 I o:o:-:-:0:-:~j-:-:-:-: I... j ' ' o'c'o'c'o'o'o'o'o' o'c'o'o'o'o'u. :':':'.'. ...::::::::::::. .... .... . ... o . .‘I'Z':':°:':':' ::'::: V:'. :-:;:;:;:;:::;:;:;:;:;:5;: ........ - . .-.-.-:-:-:-:-:-:-:—:-:-:-:- :- '- ‘3°-'-:-:3:1:3:1:1:3:3:1:3:3'3 :2'1:3'-.-:' -: :::,:;;;;;:;:;:;:;:-:::;:;:; °,""'"- 3 31 33'3'3'1 31 ' ‘ ' ' .-:3:3:3:3:3:'1123;323:222 4126:::::::::::::::::::::,. :$:3:'$::E': ......................................................................... . -:-:-:-:-:"-:-:;‘-,1::-?-:' ‘ - - . :I: : : : : z: ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ’ ';.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.; -:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-;-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-°-' 553%???“ :.:.;.:.:.;.:.j._.....;. ____ . . .- ° ' ' z z z z : .......................................................................... '3':."'.' '.' ':°:'I°Z'I"'3°Z°I':'I'I‘I' .° ' . ' ' ' ° ‘ ' ° ° ' ' ' ‘ ‘ ' '.'.'.'.'.':':'i'1'1'1'3°:':':'1’ 3'1'i'1°3'3'I'I'I'I'Z':':°I'I-I'1': °:°.':':°:':':'. :.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.: “ .-:fifi-I-I-Z-I-Iifi:I-Z-Iiifi'I '1;2::'I'IC'I'Z'I'I'E'PI'I'I' .... 'o:o:-:o:-:0:::::' :3:3:1:3:1:i:3:1:1:3:1:izizi: . , 3;-.-:.:-:5:1:3:.:1:3:3:1:1:1:1:1:i:1: :;:;:;:;:;:;:.:-:;:;:;:;:;:-:-:;:.: ;:-:-:-;;:;:-:-:;:-:-:-:-:c:-:-:-:-:-: ;:;:;:;:;:_5§;§: :3:3:3:i:3:1:3:3:1:?:3;323:12:: 1:1:3:1:1:3:3:i:1:3:323:1:1:3:1:1:1:i: :-:.:.:.:-:-:-:«:-:-:-:-:':-:-:-:-: -:-:-:~:~:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: 53555.: .- .C.....l...'.......-.I.-.I. .................................................................................. . ..:... ..:..-. $5225»:-:-:.:‘-55‘.3‘:::.:.:.;.:.;.:.:.;Isis e“333555335252525232323335525: F L I NT 3 " 52523532323232? 331233;5255525533552553552353555§E§E§E§E§E§E§E§E§Eg oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooo 51513153351535???I1E1335533353333351353523T335733?{3:3:izlzifizifizizifitiz321:1:3:1:‘ “use. TRALTS I704! .030;§§§si=i=5=§§«::555..*m :Qsigsgsgsgsgsgsgsgsgsgsgsgsg mg; OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ' SPANDBLANC lTwe ;- “':= ' ==Mazes:2232222333 I? -._ .;:E:E:E_ ,5 : 33555-255335 :j:332:2:_:,:,:,:5.2555555; ;:;:;:-:;:;:;:§:§: we ............... a :_ ; - *;: '* _* i:-- : - Siz' -32§:-=:-:‘=-- £32525: ‘=5¢i=5=515=3=5=i=5=5151533333 2335232523335??? v. + 55555 5.; f. =E°=E=---= :...::,»..:;: =:=:?.5: b :szszszzzsrs:;:;:s ~ " ~ I" :3:'=:7: 3‘3.-"==:'. -. - 5.."':;:;: 4:31:21:3:1:1:3:1:3:1:3:1:3:1:1:3:3:3: '23:1:1:3:3:3:3:1: B C D "'"'=:- '3:3"-:’:::E:-.-.- 2:5: 1:1:321:1:3:1:1:3:1:3:3:5:3:1:1:3:3:3:3. 1135235523: -=' ” :- .E='- 3333332523555355353555Egigigigigigigigi:2111:1135??? 75““ 6751- 6167- :- .2'E='- 55555;53535353535gigEgigigEgnggigEgE;E; @3233? 7692 7375 6682 COMIC/t v 506/4/A6e'A/0 ‘ v 0 WI: tam/1g; (QM/611164)? 1 M . (Mew Wit/49m £5,- Q’Mfié ca 52’ c I was mums -9- -76- II o u - APPENDIX III INDIVIDUAL RECORD SCHEDULE I. SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF BOY. 1. Court case number 7 f3 2. Foster setting placement in 1965 W . 3. How many placements were made during 1965 . 3a. Type of setting 1. 2. 30 LL. 5. 3b. For each, what was length of time in placement(s). 1. 20 3O L—I-o 50 60 A. Type of petition for most recent action. Del. Dep. & Neg. . 5. Type of court ward. Temp. Perm. . 6. Date of birth . 7. Age at time of court action in 1965. YEARS MONTHS . 8. Race . 9. Religion . 10. Grade in school at time of court action in 1965 . 11. Previous court action. YES NO . lla. Age of FIRST court action . 12. Total number of court actions as per record . 12a. Dates and list of particular offenses for each court action. ¥TUHvF4 -77- .—.--- .---.-, -- ...- ....e.— “—0 -— ..- a—N....-.— '- s . . --‘.---v .m..— -0 .4 .. *--- 0' . . c ' ‘ ....-- ._-.__.--...~..__......- ._-.... -~......n._..__ - .~_ .. . v . - ‘ . . . n -. _. , . - . a“ _. - -.. .....-.....___-_ .-..-. I I ~__ - _ ._ _,___.__..___fl . ._ .. . -- "w“-.m . l . . « . . . . . . I -......._ . . .. . -l. -7 . v ‘ - ' Q ' o ‘ --q.. . . _... , -7. I V I ' o “.. a.-. .- . ‘ .. . I . * . ' 'S. V I O o u , ‘7 ..--. . .._—.-.-.._ . l . - ..~.4..._.._.__ . ...,...,. , . _ . . - .....-...—--——-. ._ .- II. 13. 12b. For previous offenses what was final court action. l. 2. 3. A. Source of referral to court in 1965. 1. Off. of J.C. 6. Pub.We1.Ag. 11. Health Dept. 2. J.C.other co. 7. Individual 12. Pri.Soc.Ag. 3. Cir.Court 8. MCI, BTS, GTS. 13. Relative A. Law enf.off. 9. St.Dept.Soc.Wel. lu. Foster parent 5. Parent(s) 10. School 15. Other SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF FAMILY. l. 3. Marital status at time of court action in 1965. a. Married, living together b. Marriage intact, not living together c. Father dead d. Mother dead e. Both parents dead f. Divorce g. Separated or deserted h. Unmarried 1. Legal father not natural father j. Unknown With whom living at time of court action in 1965. a. Both parents b. Mother only c. Father only d. Mother & step—father e. Father & step-mother f. With relatives g. Foster family h. Child care institution 1. Elsewhere Number of siblings. Older brothers Older sisters Younger brothers Younger sisters 3a. Do siblings have court record(s)? YES NO 3a(l) Does record speak of any siblings placed outside of home by this court? YES NO UNKNOWN 3a(2) Were siblings placed together? YES NO 3a(3) Type of placement 3b. Ordinal Position -78— ”0.-.- _--_ on“.-__r_ """'" -.-..,- ’ *’— 09—~__ >-_ 91.... . -._.‘ ‘ no... . .‘.,. >-—., w 7-..- "-00-- ._ ‘-. ..._, ..__- .. ,_... .. h. Occupations of Parents. I - I a 1. Prof. & tech. 6. Operations 2. Manag. & Prop. 7. Private household 3. Clerical . Service worker A. Sales 9. Unemployed 5. Crafts & foreman lO. ADC 11. Unknown 5. Education of parents (highest grade completed) MOTHER FATHER 6. Address at time of court action in 1965 III. DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURES 1. Psychological testing administered. YES NO la. DATES TYPE OF TESTS PERFORMED BY lb. I.Q. Score 1c. Recommendations made by psychologists: 2. Psychiatric interview. YES NO 2a. DATES PERFORMED BY 2b. Recommendations by psychiatrists: 3. Did court follow any of the recommendations from above? NO YES—-IN PART YES-~IN FULL 3a. Explain: -79- BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS ’scel. Residential Treatment for the Disturbed Child. New YorE: International Universities Press, 1960 Lydia F. The Residential Treatment Center: ChildrenJ Program,;and Costs. NethOrk: CHIIH WelTare League of America, 196E .fred J. Planning Community Services for Children in Trouble. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963 Walter R. Statistics on Delinquents and Delinquency. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 196R .rris B., Harrower, Molly, and Beck, Mildred G. A New Patternjfor Mental Health Services in a Children's Court. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1958 Thorsten, and Wolfgang, Marvin E. The Measurement of Delinquency. "Theory, Design, and Procedure for the Scaling of Offenses." New Yerk: Whiley and Sons, 196A Clyde B. The Juvenilg Offender. First Edition, New York: Doubleday and Co., l95h Maxine EomdL.Basic Structure of Children's Services in Michigan. Ann Arbor: The AmeriCan Judicature Society for the James Foster Foundation, 1953 ARTICLES AND PERIODICALS 'ohn S. "Therapy in the Juvenile Court," American Bar Association Journal, vols AB, 1952 ok, Miriam H. "Criteria for Agency Referral of a Child to a Residential Treatment Center," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, vols 25, 1955 [orris F. "The Role of Residential Treatment for Children," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, vols 25, 1955 -80- .‘I .‘ , ‘1 ' ‘ r - -R-{H.-‘~~‘.._.-.r...-o... “- ,‘ t J -.4‘,_-- ..... A.-.,----..... ...* ‘ . ,w -0 ---o»-".V.I-.‘.-‘ . n- - -l. . . a-w—q—F-‘- — >""‘. 7 ~ V.»""‘mt ..- u ‘ V v-" > 1.. .i...... I ‘ - '. 'q“ .- __-- .. A-....._ REPORTS Children's Charter of the Juvenile Courts of Michigan. Pathways to Progress for Michigan's Children. Kalamazoo, Michigan: 1965 Council of Social Agencies of Genesee County. Guide to Community Services. More About People: Their Environment and Services They Use Part II: Census Tract Project. 1965 -81- MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LI 3 1293 RARIES 03012 5990