. . (71 w- A - _ - -"" ('»‘51~ 7"“ “ t o ‘ . o ‘- vo‘mm. . QWM Q‘Mm' w. V.w‘l w- ov—u'vvvvvw-v -- _ A RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT cam-£3 .ron JUVENILE oetmoums: . $0110.er AND PROGRAM EVALUATION - “ ‘ THESIS Foam: DEGREE- om. .A. ‘ woman sme UNIVERSITY aauca HOWARD me 2975' MAR o 9 20092 a) 7 EH 1 2’» 2002 Q' C). /,;/0/a"? AW V5} 1 TEA-aw; 1 Swa" 5“ w \L ‘4_‘ $14 CW) Ax, 13:37 "I. A 025 ABSTRACT A RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT CENTER FOR JUVENILE DELINQUENTS: FOLLOW-UP AND PROGRAM EVALUATION By Bruce Howard Ente A review of the literature concluded that neither psychological nor sociological theorists have succeeded in identifying a definitive etiology of delinquent behavior. Further, a variety of intervention strategies have exhibited only mixed results in rehabilitating and re—socializing juvenile delinquents. In the tradition of residential treatment centers, Camp Highfields for Boys was Opened near Lansing, Michigan in January, 1967. Using a cultural transmission model, youths aged thirteen to seventeen whose delinquency warrants temporary removal from the community have been accepted for treatment of psyrho— logical, social, or educational problems. The present research was undertaken as a follow—up study and program evaluation in order to secure data about level of community adjustment subsequent to treatment and then to input that information to evaluation of program process and effectiveness. Within the frame- work of a single group pre—test/post-test design, data was collected depicting each of 99 youths (all Lansing residents) at time of admis- sion. A comprehensive assessment of each youth was provided by 25 variables depicting personal, familial, school, and legal functioning. Eight major aspects of the camp program were identified and scores were computed for each resident representing the development of these treatment resources during his tenure. Outcome criteria focused on Bruce Howard Ente academic performance, involvement with police, and adjudicated reci- divism during the two years following separation from the facility. An overall view of the incidence and types of post-treatment delinquency revealed in summary statistics that Camp Highfields can point to a recidivism rate of 33%, predominantly property offenses. Correlational data, V-analysis results, and O-analysis predictions all strongly suggest, however, that participation in the program did exert beneficial influence on camp residents. Significantly, availability of a more extensive treatment program did correlate with decreased arrests during the first year follow~up, but not the second year. It was also seen that adolescents less committed to a deviant lifestyle were most likely to benefit from the camp's intervention and to be at lower risk upon release. Based on the results and their interpretation, a number of suggestions were advanced for strengthening the camp program. In light of the current state of delinquency research, experimental studies for remediation of delinquent behavior were prOposed for implementation at Camp Highfields. A RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT CENTER FOR JUVENILE DELINQUENTS: FOLLOW—UP AND PROGRAM EVALUATION By Bruce Howard Ente A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1975 To Joan who shares my dreams ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I owe a great debt to my Committee members: Robert J. Calsyn, Chairperson, Louis C. Tornatzky, and George W. Fairweather. Each in his own way has been both a teacher and a friend; I have taken some- thing of all three with me and will always appreciate their willing- ness to give of themselves. Thanks and warm feelings go to Marj Curtis, whose help could always be counted on, and to my colleagues in the adventure known as Ecological Psychology. Without the support of a wide variety of persons in the Lansing area, this research could never have been undertaken. Encouragement and assistance came from Messrs. Warren Ritter and Darryl Zwick of the Ingham County Probate Court; Mr. Craig Sparks, ex-Director of Camp Highfields, and the entire Camp staff; Deputy Chief Riefsnyder, Captain Walsh, and Lieutenant Ryan of the Lansing Police Department; and Dr. Edward Remick and the late Mr. Ken Mead of the Lansing School District. Finally, in a footnote to history, I would like to remember Emma at Rink's with apologies for not entering clinical psychology, and Dave Leffel who had confidence in my future. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....... . ....................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES............... ........ .... .......... . ........ vii INTRODUCTION .......... .......... ............ ............ ..... 1 Historical View of Juvenile Delinquency............ ..... l Etiology of Juvenile Delinquency ........ . ............. ..5 Theoretical Perspectives.... ..... . ......... . ............ 8 Intervention and Treatment Programs.... ....... ..... ..... 13 Present Program and Evaluation Objectives ............... l6 METHODOLOGY................. ............... . ........... . ..... 20 Participants ....... ........ ................ .............20 Analysis Strategies ...... ........... ...... ....., ...... ..20 Instruments ......... ...... ........ .... .................. 21 Description of Camp Highfields.... ........... ...........28 Post-release Followbup Data ............................. 33 RESULTS........A.......... ....... ................... ......... 39 Summary Statistics and Raw Correlation ............ ......39 Cluster Analysis of Variables. ............. .. ........... 49 O-Analysis and Typological Prediction ................... 54 Multiple Regression Analysis............................65 DISCUSSION..................... ............ . ................. 70 Limitations of Design...... ........ . ......... ...........7O Outcome Measures .................... ....................75 iv Cluster Analyses ........................................... 76 Multiple Regression Analyses ............................... 79 Integration of Research Findings ........................... 81 Recommendations to Camp Highfields .............. .. ....... ..83 State of Delinquency Research............ ...... ............88 Suggestions for Future Study .......... .....................93 APPENDICES [Appendix A. Correspondence and Administrative Agree- ments ............... . ..... ......... ........... 95 Appendix B. Scoring Key for the Pre—Admission Offender Profile.............. ...... . ......... 106 Appendix C. Array of Father's Occupations with Socio—economic Achievement Scores ....... . ..... 108 Appendix D. Rating Form for Parental Discipline Styles..... ..... . ...... . ...................... 110 Appendix E. Rating Form and Classification of Juvenile and Adult Offenses with Seriousness Scores ............................ 111 Appendix F. Camp Highfields Resources Questionnaire ....... 114 Appendix G. Growth of Camp Highfields Staff and Resident Population.............. ........... ..116 Appendix H. Scoring Key for the Post-release Follow-up Profile ............................. 120 Appendix J. Letters to Camp Highfields ex—Residents with Return Postcard................. ....... ..121 Appendix K. Letters to Parents and Minor Camp High- fields ex-Residents with Return Postcard ...... 124 Appendix L. Letters to Parents of Non—respondent ex- Residents with Return Postcard.... ....... .....127 Appendix M. Telephone Interview Follow-up Protocol ........ 130 Appendix N. Empirical V—analysis Key Cluster Structure........... .......................... 132 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......... . ......... .... .................. ..... ..... 135 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 2a. 2b. 10. ll. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES The Pre-admission Offender Profile ....... ...... ...... 21 Camp Highfields Program and Facility Features.. ..... 28 Features of Camp Highfields Residence ............... 3O Chronological Development of Camp Highfields ......... 31 The Post—release Follow-up Profile.. ...... . .......... 34 Post-release Indices of Offense Seriousness per Police Records..... ................ ....... ..... . ..... 41 Correlation of Pro-treatment and Post-treatment Indices of Offense Seriousness per Police RecordSOOOO ...... O. ..... O ..... 00.0.0000... ........... 42 Correlation of Pre—admission Offender Charac- teristics with Camp Highfields Treatment Resources................ ............................ 44 Correlation of Camp Highfields Treatment Resources with Post-release Indices of Offense Seriousness per Police Records ...... ...... ........... 46 V—analysis Preset Key Cluster Structure.... .......... SO O-types Derived from Typological Analysis ........... 56 Multiple Regression on Number of Post- release Police Contacts............. .......... . ..... 67 Multiple Regression on Post-release Commitment to a Correctional Facility ............... 68 Multiple Regression on Manner of Leaving Camp Highfields ........ . ............................ 69 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Closed System Model of Delinquency Causation ........... 10 Figure 2. Variables in Delinquency Causation Theory with Inter—correlations....... ..... ........... ........ .11 Figure 3. O—typology Profiles with Outcome Variable Means........58 vii INTRODUCTION Deviance is a problem which must be confronted by every society. Deviance, or the expression of some undesirable difference is a state of belief, being, or action which exceeds the limits of acceptable con- duct as defined by the society's norms. Given the imperfectly defined nature of social norms and the fact that norms fluctuate over time, across cultures, and even across social classes within a culture, statistical definitions of deviance are of little use. Rather as Becker (1963) pointed out, social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance; deviant behavior is behavior that people so label. Deviance on a noticeable scale usually occurs as the result of one of seven normative problems (Dinitz, Dynes, and Clark, 1969): norm conflict, unreachable goal norms, dis- continuous norms, impotent and sanctionless norms, evasive norms, and stressful norms. Most of these normative difficulties are reflected in one or more theories on the causation of the aberrant behavior ' known as juvenile delinquency. Historical View gf_Juvenile Delinquency Juvenile delinquency, like other forms of deviance, may be regarded as a social problem with a "natural history" (Fuller and Myers, 1940); as such it passed through the stages of awareness, policy determination, and reform. Awareness of juvenile delinquency as a distinct social phenomenon arose with the growth of large urban-industrial centers characterized by Wirth (1966) as consisting of large numbers of people, densely settled, with heterogeneous individual and group life styles. Prior to the late (1800's there had been no distinction in English or American juris- prudence between adult crime and juvenile delinquency, but urbaniza- tion and emerging social sciences combined to increase public awareness that youngsters should not be treated or incarcerated with adult criminals. The first juvenile court was established in Cook County, Illinois in 1899 by act of the State Legislature to have jurisdiction over "wayward children" in cases of dependency, neglect, and delinquency which included incorrigible juveniles as well as law-breakers. This court was established under the doctrine of Parens Patriae by which the state invested the court with power to substitute for the child's parents; the child's right to custody was seen to predominate over his right to liberty and due process. This court embodied most of the features of contemporary juvenile courts -- informal private hearings, confidential records, probation staff, non-criminal vocabulary, non- adversary proceedings -- and served as a model for courts to follow. In particular, the orientation of the court leaned to diagnosis and treatment prescription rather than punitive retribution. This approach was formalized with the 1909 founding of the first child guidance center, the Juvenile Psychopathic Institute (later Institute for Juvenile Research), chartered to establish a program of scientific research into abnormal behavior patterns and treatment of delinquent children by psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers. Concurrent with establishment of a juvenile justice system, a shift in criminological theory was occurring that brought the Positive school to predominance over the Classical school (Trojanowicz, 1973). Proponents of the Classical school see no differences between law- breakers and non-offenders except an act of will by which the criminal as hedonist chooses to commit a crime. To inhibit criminal behavior it becomes necessary to assess invariable punishments that will be aversive enough to cause potential offenders to "behave". The Positive school of thought in essence argues that anti-social acts arise out of intra-psychic and social conditions that result in sick or maladaptive behavior. This personal and environmental scientific determinism even- tually led to the emphasis upon psychological and sociological factors that characterize most contemporary theories of delinquency causation. Juvenile delinquency may be broadly identified as including "acts defined in the statutes of the States as a violation of the State law or municipal ordinance by youth of juvenile court age; or conduct so seriously anti-social as to interfere with the rights of others, or to menace the welfare of the delinquent himself or of the community" (National Center for Social Statistics, 1972). More succinctly, delinquent behavior may be regarded as behavior which violates the legal norms of society and_which evokes official responses by the various elements of the juvenile justice system (Cloward and Ohlin, 1960). Delinquency is expensive in monetary, social, and human terms, but these costs account for only one part of the considerable concern evinced by society. On a deeper level as delinquent behavior increases or is more reliably measured, this represents visible evidence of 4 failure in the socialization process. Transgression of norms by children and adolescents threatens to disrupt transmission of cultural values, an unacceptable threat to a society obsessed with order. The penal code of the United States prohibits two classes of acts: malum in se (evil in themselves) such as murder, assault, rape, arson which are threatening to society and its members, and malum prohibitum (evil because prohibited). Crimes which are "evil in themselves" generally are interdicted cross-culturally and have their roots in mores and unwritten laws of very early cultures. As law—making bodies deve10ped in more sophisticated societies, attention turned largely toward protection of morals, health, and safety. Thus between 1900 and 1930 the additions that were made to criminal statutes in this country were generally aimed at regulating general conduct. As a re— sult, as Smith and Pollack (1971) point out, a large part of the penal code is concerned with acts that are not universally considered evil, but that we at this point in time for a variety of reasons have labelled sufficiently undesirable to be punished by the criminal justice system (p. 27). The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1967a) has highlighted the dilemma posed by crime and delinquency in a period of general affluence and widespread technologi- cal advances: Scientists and engineers have had very little impact ... on the overall operations of the criminal justice system and its principal com— ponents: police, courts, and corrections. More than 200,000 scientists and engineers have applied themselves to solving military problems and hun- dreds of thousands more to innovations in other areas of modern life, but only a handful are work- ing to control the crimes that injure or frighten millions of Americans each year. Yet the two com— munities have much to offer each other: science and technology is a valuable source of knowledge and techniques for combatting crime; the criminal justice system represents a vast area of challeng— ing problems. Etiology of Juvenile Delinquency In large measure, the "challenging problems" of juvenile delin- quency arise from the complex etiology of delinquent behavior. A difficulty that has plagued much theorizing is well-illustrated by Hooton's (1939) work on morphology. This physical anthropologist measured 107 body characteristics of criminals and non~criminals and then concluded that criminal behavior was caused by inherited biologi— cal features. Drawing causal inferences from correlational data is especially dangerous when both variables under study are multifaceted and prone to subjective measurement. At the present time a wide variety of antecedent conditions have been related to delinquency and it is therefore very difficult to trace a cause-effect relationship. Among the variables which have been documented as correlative dimensions of juvenile delinquency are socio- economic status (Goldfarb, 1953; Miller, 1958; Reiss and Rhodes, 1961; Vaz, 1967), association with delinquent peers (Tannenbaum, 1938; Thrasher, 1936; Shaw and McKay, 1942; Geiss, 1965; Empey, 1966), community integration (Macoby et a1., 1958), I. Q. and education (Short and Strodtbeck, 1965; Coleman, 1966), poor self—image (Merton, 1957; Cohen, 1955; Scarpittien:al., 1962), early upbringing and family tension (Berman, 1964), broken homes (Clueck and Clueck, 1962; Toby, 1967; Monahan, 1957; Slocum and Stone, 1963), and methods of parental control (McCord, McCord, and Zola, 1959; Nye, 1958). Psychological theorists have focused on factors that account for the deviance of certain individuals and the conformity of others. Much work has dealt with delinquency as a manifestation of mental ill- ness with associated ego dysfunction, super-ego conflicts and so on. A longitudinal study by Scarpitti, Murray, Dinitz, and Reckless (1962) validated their prediction that a child's positive self-concept when reinforced by parents, teachers, and significant others can divert the youngster from delinquent influences and activities. Essentially this same process is reflected in Reckless' "containment theory" on inner and outer control: "strong inner and outer containment constitutes an isolation against normative deviancy (not constitutional or psycho- logical deviancy)" (1966, p. 223). Other psychodynamic investigations have focused on the parent- child interaction as the source of delinquent behavior. In general these theorists have argued that since the family is such a potent source of socialization, especially in early childhood, family disrup- tion will manifest itself in the child's poor ego control, primitive super-ego, acting out and so forth. In comparing delinquents and non- delinquents many researchers found a much higher percentage of un- stable or broken homes among the delinquent population (Glueck and Clueck, 1968; Browning, 1960; Gold, 1963; Slocum and Stone, 1963; Peterson and Becker, 1965); Monahan (1957) also found a greater like- lihood of recidivism among delinquents from broken homes. Other researchers have emphasized the tension and instability preceding actual break-up of the family as the major factor (Sterne, 1964; Abrahamson, 1960; Andry, 1960) while some believe that parental emo- tional instability (Freeman and Savastano, 1970) or parental rejection (Jenkins, 1957) are the crucial elements. Finally, McCord et a1. (1959) investigated four styles of parental discipline —- love- oriented, punitive, lax, and erratic —~ and found lax or erratic disci- pline strongly related to delinquency whereas consistent discipline whether love—oriented or punitive was related to non-delinquency. Sociological theorists, on the other hand, have attempted to iden- tify environmental factors which give rise to variable levels of delinquency. These theories have largely evolved from Durkheim's (1951) treatment of anomie and deviance. Merton (1938), Cohen (1955), and Cloward and Ohlin (1960) have argued that delinquency is a reaction to the inability of lower class youths to achieve middle-class goals. Without the necessary advantages, qualifications, and opportunities for fulfillment of their upwardly mobile aspirations, some youths respond to the strain induced by joining a delinquent subculture and engaging in illegal activities. I Thrasher (1936) emphasized the role of the gang in facilitating delinquency, in an environment that often includes adult crime. Simi— larly Shaw and McKay (1942) and Sutherland and Cressey (1966) postu- lated that personal and group contacts with criminal elements, in conjunction with ineffective social control agencies, can account for levels of delinquency persisting over many years. Mead (1918) suggested that association with law violators must also have meaning to the individual and be supportive of a role he wants to become committed to. Along this same line, Matza (1964) viewed the delin- quent "in a limbo between convention and crime, responding in turn to the demands of each... but postponing commitment, evading decision" 8 (p. 28). Deflection from law—abiding to law—breaking behavior and Vice versa may be almost accidental, but ultimately the individual's choice will play a key in determining the long-range adaptation. Theoretical Perspectives Theorists such as Miller (1958) and Kvaraceus and Miller (1959) contended that delinquent behavior patterns are not basically incom— patible with lower-class values such as toughness, autonomy, excite- ment, smartness and further that street gang activities are a reaction against the female-dominated households of lower class families. Vaz (1967) in a parallel analysis viewed middle-class delinquency as the outgrowth of normal adolescent explorations that transgress the bound- aries of legitimacy, finally becoming normative and then taken for granted. Validity of the latter two theories in particular and of pre- viously discussed theories as well must be seriously questioned in light of the evidence on law-breaking activity versus official delin- quency. Official delinquency is primarily a lower-class phenomenon (Eaton and Polk, 1961; Burgess, 1952; Wattenberg and Balistrieri, 1950) but recent studies using self-report measures of (non-official) delinquency have strongly questioned the relationship between social class and law-violating behavior (Clark and Wenninger, 1962; Dentler and Monroe, 1961; Nye, Short, and Olsen, 1958; Empey and Erickson, 1966). In general the sociological perspective on delinquency causation may be summarized schematically as: Lower class membership Decreased achievement of societal goals 1 Increased intrapersonal strain Identification with delinquent peers Delinquency expressed in norm-violating behavior A field experiment undertaken by the Youth Studies Center of the University of Southern California (Empey and Lubeck, 1971) "attempted to unite the scientific functions of theory and research with the correctional functions of administration and intervention" (p. 3). A partial correlation technique was employed to examine the interrela- tionships of the variables diagrammed above, and revealed that social class did not account for much variance in any of the other elements. Further, only school grades as a criterion of achievement was a good predictor variable which, when combined with measures of family separa- tion and parental relationships, could efficiently predict both strain and delinquency. It appears from this that young persons who are lacking meaningful and satisfying ties with the two most pervasive socializing environ- ments in our society -- the home and the school -— often adopt a delinquent posture in search of a supportive reference group that will help to alleviate interpersonal strain. A feedback loop probably exists such that strain further reduces conventional ties to social institutions again increasing strain. Empey and Lubeck also suggested 10 that a second feedback loop may complicate the traditional assump- tions about sequential development of delinquency. Identification with delinquent peers may be a reaction to the stigmatization following delinquent acts, what Tannenbaum (1938) called "the dramatization of evil", rather than an antecedent of law—breaking behavior. The theoretical reformulation may be schematically represented as in Figure 1 (Empey and Lubeck, 1970). This closed system model argued that delinquency is the product of a sequential series of variables such that the further a given variable is from "delinquency" in the etiological chain, the lower its relationship with delinquency should be. Solid arrows represent the causal sequence among contributing variables; dotted arrows indicate the hypothesized involvement of two feedback loops. Delinquent Poor institutional ties—__€>Strain._—€>Peer ...s’Delinquency A ”<\ Identification ... ’- ’ ' ' \ 4" ’ ——_————~- ’ \ Stigma ? / Figure 1. Closed System Model of Delinquency Causation I When Empey and Lubeck (1971) measured the relationships among the variables of this delinquency causation model with the gamma coeffi- cient (Davis, 1967), a technique for computing partial correlations with ordinal data, the closed system assumption of the theoretical model was not supported. When the theoretical concepts were reordered to topographically reflect correlation size between them, the formula- tion in Figure 2 resulted: ll Strain\ + . 30 W 1‘ + .76 Peer - .49 .‘~‘DETanuency + .49__€)Identification Institutional .83 ‘1\ Ties - .30 , Figure 2. Variables in Delinquency Causation Theory with Inter- correlations This strongly suggests, for instance, that identification with delin— quent peers may follow from rather than precede delinquent behavior. In 1936, Robison asked Can Delinquency be Measured? and concluded after an extensive and SOphisticated study that "the data ... definitely indicate that for the field of delinquency, index-making is at present not feasible" (p. 209). Despite the passage of nearly forty years a similar conclusion would be reached today. Self-report studies (Erickson and Empey, 1963) suggest that official statistics reflect only a part of the actual incidence of delinquent behavior. In large measure this discrepancy may be traced to the considerable discretion that enters into apprehension and adjudication of alleged offenders. At the point of initial contact with the criminal justice system, apprehension by a police officer, the alleged juvenile offender is subject to the wide discretion of the officer. Middle and upper class youths may be "reprimanded and released" with much greater fre- quency than lower class or minority youths. Piliavin and Scott (1964) "screen" delinquent youth for investigated the way in which police processing both in the field and at the station. They found that decisions were based on physical and affective cues emerging from the interaction between officer and youth, cues from which the officer inferred the youth's character. 12 The process of negotiation and interpersonal interaction is especially significant in labelling juvenile delinquents in the juve- nile court setting where formal procedures are minimized and adminis- trative discretion maximized. Thus when functionalist theories which focus on reported rates of delinquency in different social classes use information from official records to make structural comparisons of factors such as home life, ethnicity, and socio—economic status, they are missing the contingencies of the human interaction element. Cicourel (1968) has recorded and analyzed interviews between probation officers and juveniles and concluded that physical appearance, facial expressions, body motions, hints, moral arguments, threats, and imputed lying all play a part in the outcome. In particular on the question of guilt versus disturbance, "a juvenile who is appealing and attractive and who wants very much to be liked and relates in a friendly manner to all around her is a prime candidate for clinical interpretations as Opposed to criminal imputations" (p. 132). Despite serious shortcomings, "official" delinquency statistics do give some indication of the extent and seriousness of the problem of juvenile delinquency. "Juvenile Court Statistics-1917" reports the most recent estimates available on judicial disposition of delin- quency cases based on data from 2/3 of all juvenile courts. During that year approximately 1,125,000 cases, excluding traffic offenses, were handled in court representing about 970,000 juveniles (2.9% of all children aged 10—17). Between 1960 and 1971 there was an increase of 121% in number of juvenile court delinquency cases as compared to a 30% increase in the population of 10-17 year olds. Similarly 13 arrests of juveniles as reported in the Uniform Crime Reports between 1960-1971 more than doubled; the most reliably reported serious offenses against persons showed an increase of 197% (though such offenses account for only about 3% of all juvenile arrests). In any case, these figures must be cautiously interpreted in light of their inflation due to more widespread and accurate measurement. Intervention and Treatment Programs Movement of the social problem of delinquenCy from the stage of awareness to policy determination has been complicated by the fact that in this country there has been no clear decision about whether treatment of delinquents is designed to l) retaliate for injury to public welfare; 2) incapacitate the offender from committing further offenses; 3) deter other potential offenders through fear of conse- quences; or 4) rehabilitate or reform the offender himself. As juvenile delinquency was not originally distinguished from adult criminality, "treatment" in the form of incarceration was aimed at accomplishing the first three goals. Even upon establishment of "Boys' Training Schools," "Youth Correctional Facilities," etc. with the overt goal of rehabilitation of juveniles, institutional goals have largely maintained a covert orientation to custodial functions. It is only with the increasing sophistication of the social sciences that juvenile delinquency has entered the stage of reform, characterized by efforts to treat offenders in such a way as to maxi— mize their potential for individual and social functioning. In this context a wide range of intervention programs have been attempted. Reports of individual counselling (Powers and Witmer, 1951; Szymanski 14 and Fleming, 1971; Thomas, 1968) and group counselling (Cole et a1., 1969; Ostrom et a1., 1971) showed mixed results almost evenly divided between some improvement and no change. Similar results are reported for strategies of social casework (Meyer et a1., 1965; Braxton, 1966; Berleman et a1., 1972) and street—corner workers (Klein, 1969; Adams, 1967; Miller, 1962). Juvenile or probate courts have been referral sources for a variety of treatment efforts centering around probation (McEachern et a1., 1968; Venezia, 1972; Scarpitti and Stephenson, 1968). Programs emphasizing volunteers and indigenous non-professionals (Forward et a1., 1973; Rosenbaum et a1., 1969; Pines and Ridgely, 1974) have attempted to adapt and improve upon the probation model, but without marked improvements in outcome. Vocational and educational programs represent another avenue that has been explored, again with inconclu— sive success (Hackler and Linden, 1970; Bartlett and Newberger, 1973; Whitney, 1974). Efforts to divert youths from involvement with the juvenile justice system altogether have resulted in establishment of Youth Service Bureaus (Reuthebuck, 1971; Elliott and LeBouef, 1973; Duxbury, 1973). Whether Y.S.B.'s in fact have been performing this function is unclear, but results reported for this model are almost uniformly laudatory. Over the past two decades, treatment approaches to juvenile delinquency have tended to emphasize reintegrative rehabilitation rather than punitive retribution. Further,communities have been identified and have defined themselves as playing a crucial role in the successful re—adaptation of deviant youths who are also members 15 of the community. In this context an increasing number of local treat- umnit centers have been opened, often by communities which.have newly recognized that crime and delinquency are symptoms of the disorganization of the community as well as of individual personalities, and that com- munity institutions -- through extending or denying their resources -- have a criti- cal influence in determining the success or failure of an individual offender (Presi- dent's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, 1967b). One of the earliest efforts to develop a community oriented treat- Inerit alternative was the Highfields Project (Weeks, 1970). Short-term institutionalization was characterized by emphasis upon guided group iIrteraction, supplemented with a work and recreation program designed tfi) increase work skills and offer alternative problem-solving strate- gies. A subsequent evaluation by McCorkle et a1. (1958) determined that 18% of Highfields boys violated parole compared to 33% of a com- parison group. A second follow-up study by Weeks (1963) found that 37% of the Highfields Project youths had recidivated as compared with 53% of a comparison group from Annandale State Reformatory. Out of the Highfields experience grew a formal field experiment designed to test a non-residential intervention strategy based on sociological theory. The Provo Experiment (Empey and Rabow, 1961; Empey and Erickson, 1972) instituted an "intensive treatment" phase including employment and peer group processes to create a change- oriented social system and a "community adjustment" phase to maintain reference group support and employment. Extensive outcome data indicated that the experimental community program seemed to be 16 associated far less with post-program delinquency and adult crime than incarceration, as well as a more rapid decline in rate of law- violating behavior. Further analysis showed that the differences were not due so much to benefits of the experimental program, however, as to deficits of traditional treatment. A subsequent and considerably more sophisticated "field experi- mental model" was devised by Empey and Lubeck (1971) with the tri- partite purpose of validating delinquency theory, generating an effec- tive community based treatment program, and developing a meaningful and useful research strategy. The Silverlake Experiment was more successful in meeting the first and third goals than the second, however. As a residential—milieu treatment center incorporating group interaction, school attendance, and employment experience the Silver- lake program did not result in lower runaways or in—program failure among experimental subjects than among controls, and post-program recidivism rates were equally high for both groups. It did appear that the absolute number of delinquent acts resulting in arrest did decline significantly among both experimentals and controls, an 84% reduction for experimental program graduates and an 85% reduction among control program graduates. Present Program and Evaluation Objectives In this same tradition Camp Highfields for Boys, Inc. was organized in 1965 by a group of community leaders in Lansing, Michigan as an alternative treatment resource for boys aged thirteen to seventeen whose delinquency warrants removal from the community but not incarceration in a youth reformatory. Group techniques for 17 working with delinquents fall into four main categories (Empey and Lubeck, 1971): 1. the cultural transmission model which seeks through traditional educational techniques to train groups of offenders in obedience and socially approved behavior; 2. the group psychotherapy model which focuses upon individual psychodynamics and the introduc- tion of change that is theoretically independent for each actor; 3. the group centered model which suggests that change proceeds con- currently with and is the function of the effective develOpment of the group; and 4. the therapeutic milieu model which emphasizes the manipulation of the total milieu of the institution as a means for altering offender behavior. The first category most accurately characterizes Camp Highfields with its stress upon classes, structured activities, and orientation sessions to "indoctrinate the offender with the need for constructive citizenship, obedience to authority, and the problems of social adjust- ment" (Empey and Lubeck, 1971, p. 75). Although Highfields has avoided some of the more obvious pitfalls of the cultural transmission model such as a tendency toward authoritarianism and an opposition of staff and residents, other disadvantages have appeared and will be dealt with at greater length elsewhere. The philosophical orientation of camp staff has been to view delinquent boys as immature and impul- sive, and lacking adequate educational, vocational, and interpersonal skills. Thus the facility provides a structured but relatively Open and non-punitive setting for boys who are viewed as deficient in self— control, expressed through incorrigibility and truancy or via mani- festly criminal activities. 18 The years since the formal opening of Camp Highfields in January,l967 have seen the rapid expansion of physical plant, of staff, of resident population to a maximum of 48, as well as establish- ment of an accredited education program, recreational therapy, and limited employment opportunities. Due to constraints of staff, time, and funds Camp Highfields unfortunately has been forced to operate without any formal program evaluation or systematic feedback concerning former residents' readjustment after graduation or termination from the facility. After-care is not a part of the camp intervention so that chance meetings with former residents or occasional letters or visits from graduates who have "gone straight" are the only sources of information concerning outcome. Evaluation, to this point, has consisted of a time study to assess how employees spend their working hours. Throughout the camp's history, staff members have continually been aware that their program could and should be improved and strengthened. To this end, there has always been attention paid to unmet needs, self-examination, and so on within a generally supportive atmosphere. These efforts, however laudable, can not substitute for a rigorous, methodologically sound examination of the results of the treatment program including an attempt to scientifically assess the impact of the program on the observed outcomes. Therefore, the present study has undertaken a follow-up study of Camp Highfields participants from 1967 through 1972 in order to determine post-release incidences of success and failure at re—integration as community members. Subse- quently these data have been input to a program evaluation of Camp l9 Highfields as a residential milieu treatment center. This evaluation has focused on both process and effectiveness issues as they relate to program performance. Since the major emphasis of this study falls upon a retrospective program evaluation, no formal hypotheses were formulated to be accepted or rejected. Instead, three major questions were generated to guide the research: 1) What rates and types of recidivism predominated among Camp Highfields residents subsequent to release, and how can these failures be accounted for? 2) What effect does Camp Highfields have on reducing delinquent behavior, and what aspects of the program contribute most significantly to post-release adjustment? 3) What type of juvenile offender is best treated by a residen- tial milieu treatment center like Camp Highfields? METHODOLOGY Participants Participants were all camp residents between January, 1967 and September, 1972 who were residents of Lansing, Michigan prior to admission to Camp Highfields (N=99). Residency was established by reference to home addresses on intake forms. Excluded from this study were 79 youths -— 76 who were residents of other parts of Michigan, two from other states, and one from Mexico -- since their police, court, and school records were not readily accessible. All participants had left Camp Highfields at least twelve months prior to the start of this study. Five youths left the Lansing area upon their release; thus first-year follow-up data was available for 94 boys. A total of 74 camp residents had been released at least two years before data collection began. In addition three of this number left Lansing after one-year of post-release residency. Thus second-year data was available for 71 youths. A third year follow-up was not undertaken since less than half (N=45) of the study population had been separated from Highfields for that length of time. Analysis Strategies The thrust of this single group pre-test/post-test evaluation was to elucidate in Suchman's (1967) terms the process and effective- ness aspects of a treatment program for mid—adolescent juvenile delinquents. 20 21 Identification of treatment outcomes was accomplished through the straightforward use of summary statistics, measures of disper- sion, and raw correlations. In order to identify the contributions of demographic variables and treatment vafiables to determining the observed outcomes, a multiple correlation technique was employed. A more comprehensive picture of the interrelationships among offender characteristics, treatment resources, and recidivism measures was obtained from the use of cluster analysis of variables. Further refinement was sought by the cluster analysis of objects procedure. Insight into the type of youth who benefitted most from the camp pro— gram was also derived from the two cluster analytic techniques. Instruments Each study participant was assessed on the basis of seven cate- gories of descriptive variables which define the youth's major pre- senting characteristics at time of admission to Camp Highfields. Data was collected from a variety of Lansing agencies; the letters securing access to their records and administrative agreements which resulted are displayed in Appendix A. The various criteria, variable code names, and sources of data are presented in Table 1. The scoring key for each variable appears in Appendix B. Insert Table 1 here 22 Table 1.. The Pre-admission Offender Profile. Measurement Domain Data Source 1. Individual descriptors 1. Social history; camp screening interview Age at admission to program (NEWAGE) Race of resident (ETHNIC) 2. Lifestyle descriptors 2. Social history; Ingham County Paid employment experience (JOBS) Court files Involvement in delinquent peer group (PEERS) Use of drugs (DRUGS) Verbalized goals for future (GOALS) 3. Family descriptors 3. Social history; Camp screening interview, Extent of nuclear family intactness psychological test- (FAMILY) ing results Mother employed outside the home (MOMHOM) Family socio-economic status (SES) Paternal disciplinary style (PADISC) Maternal disciplinary style (MADISC) 4. Neighborhood demographic descriptors 4. U. 8. Bureau of the Census 1970 Block Mean home evaluation on youth's block Statistics (HOMVAL) Percent high density dwelling units on block (HIDENS) Percent black residents on block (BLAPER) Percent residents under 18 on block (KIDPER) 23 Table l. (cont'd.). Percent families with female head of household on block (FHEAD) 5. School descriptors 5. Lansing School District files; Record of suspensions for truancy social history; (TRUANT) camp screening interview Record of disciplinary suspensions/ expulsions (BBEHAV) Grade point average for two years pre- ceding admission (BGPA) Standardized achievement test score preceding admission (BTEST) 6. Police record descriptors 6. Lansing Police , Department juvenile Seriousness index of victimless crimes files (LPDBl) Seriousness index of drimes against property (LPDBZ) Seriousness index of crimes against persons (LPDB3) Total number of recorded police contacts (NUMCRB) 7. Probate court record descriptors 7. Ingham County Pro- bate Court files Seriousness index of victimless crimes (ICPBl) Seriousness index of crimes against property (ICPBZ) Seriousness index of crimes against persons (ICPB3) 24 Individual and Lifestyle Descriptors: The two variables included as descriptive of the individual client were extracted straightforwardly from face sheets at Camp High- fields or at one of the other agencies with which the youth came in contact. Similarly information about whether the youth had been employed or had used drugs was available in self-report form from camp records. If at the screening interview he expressed any aspirations for the future, this was considered evidence of verbalized goals. Screening interview summaries indicated that 57 residents were defini— tely queried about their goals. Of this number, 52 or 91% did express a goal for the future. Due to this very low variance, it was necessary to drop verbalized goals as a lifestyle descriptor for the purpose of analysis. Involvement in delinquent peer group activities was in- directly assessed from self—reports of close friends and from examina- tion of the types and circumstances of offenses committed. Family Descriptors: Data about the family came from a number of agency case files and were scaled in several different ways. Presence of the mother in the house was a function of whether the youth's mother was employed or not. The family's socio-economic status was a function of the father's indicated job position; if there was no father in the family the mother's job, if any, was used. Ratings of the father's job were taken from Bogue's Socioeconomic Achievement (SEA) Index (Bogue, 1969). The SEA Index, similar to other SES ratings, is based on an equally weighted average of income and educational levels associated with per- sons in each category. Unlike earlier systems, however, the SEA Index 25 forms a ratio scale so it is possible to note relative and absolute differences between occupations. The restriction of range on this variable which resulted from somewhat limited variance in SES of families of Highfields residents may have slightly decreased the correlation coefficients of this item from what would appear in an unbiased population estimate. (See Appendix C for the array of occu— pations and SEA Index scores.) Degree of marital or familial intactness was measured on a seven point scale ranging from a boy living with both natural parents to one who had been institutionalized most of his life. Since changes in family status could and did occur fairly frequently among the High— fields population (one set of parents had been married to and divorced from one another four times) the state of marital cohesion immediately preceding admission to the camp was recorded if that state had existed for at least six months. Otherwise the next pre— ceding status was recorded. Four styles of parental discipline -- 1) rigid/abusive, 2) dis- interested/uncontrolling, 3) inconsistent, and 4) reasonable limits/ freedoms -- were identified from case histories. Six expert judges in psychology, social work and family and child sciences then ranked these four styles on a ten point scale. See Appendix D for sample of Irating form. Agreement on their rank order was high by Kendall's CHDefficient of concordance (W = .76) and variance within each rank was 1CH4. Therefore each style was assigned the mean value of the judges' rtrtings. Two raters, psychology and social work graduate students, tilen rated case histories of a systematic random selection of 33 26 subjects (sampling fraction = 1/3). The inter-rater reliability measured by Pearson's correlation coefficient was r = .68. Neighborhood Demographic and School Descriptors: The demographic description of each youth's immediate neighbor— hood was obtained by identifying the block and tract number for each home address and then extracting the required information from the U. S. Bureau of the Census' Block Statistics (1971) for the Lansing, Michigan SMSA. Information about academic and behavioral performance in the public schools was sought from Lansing School District records. Grade reports for one or two years prior to entrance to Camp High- fields were available for 77 of the 99 subjects (78%). Standardized test scores could be located for only 27 of the camp residents (27%) and as a result this measure was dropped from the analysis. Similarly, disciplinary information concerning suspensions and expulsions was stored by the school district office in rather haphazard fashion. According to policy, records with no new entries for two years would be purged, but in fact older records were sometimes retained and newer ones occasionally destroyed. Due to the unaccountable bias that would have been introduced, variables relating to behavioral adapta- tion in the schools were eliminated from this study. Police Record Descriptors: Contacts with police is one important measure of delinquent involvement, since probate court records often reflect dismissal, reduction, consolidation, or adjudication of non-specific charges such as "high misdemeanors". A comprehensive list was collected of all 27 offenses for which Camp Highfields residents had been apprehended by the police, and then divided into three mutually exclusive categories: Victimless Crimes (including status offenses), Crimes Against Property, and Crimes Against Persons. To construct a ranked scale of offenses according to seriousness, this list of Offenses was sent to six ex- perts in the juvenile justice field. (See Appendix El for sample of rating form.) Four of six juvenile justice experts returned usable rankings of seriousness within each category. Kendall's coefficient of concordance showed fairly high agreement within each area: Victim— less Crimes W = .73, Crimes Against Property W = .64, Crimes Against Persons W = .71. The overall average inter-rater correlation was r = .60. For scoring purposes each offense was assigned the mean value of its rankings by the judges. (See Appendix E2 for array of all offenses and associated ranks and scores.) In addition, the number of police contacts was summed for each youth to provide another index of frequency of law-violating behavior. Probate Court Record Descriptors: The same three scales of offense seriousness were designed to be used to measure the extent of a boy's involvement with the juvenile court. Unfortunately, Court records frequently were phrased only in terms of broad categories of offenses such as "felonies and high mis- demeanors". Specific alleged offenses often were not reflected in the final adjudication and when such direct references did appear they were nearly always the same charges as had been recorded by the police department. Therefore these three variables were unable to contribute 28 much unduplicated data and consequently were omitted as resident characteristics at time of admission. Description of Camp Highfields Not unexpectedly the Camp Highfields program has been in an almost constant state of flux and growth since its inception in early 1967. The increasing sophistication of program planning has meant frequent staff changes on the intra-organizational level, as well as shifts in the camp's perceived position within the constellation of delinquency treatment programs in mid—Michigan. The relatively unstructured emphases of the educational, recreational, and work programs meant that each resident participated in each area to widely varying degrees. Without any records detailing residents' involvement in different phases of camp activities, it was possible only to identify what treatment resources were available to a boy during his tenure at High- fields. . Eight major aspects of the Camp Highfields program were identified which collectively portray the structural milieu from the resident's perspective. These features are listed in Table 2 along with the variables operationalizing each of them and the associated code names. Two additional featdres were central to the portrayal of any stay at Camp Highfields. Length of residence was the total number of months spent at the camp during the first committment only; subsequent re—assignments of youths to Highfields by the court were regarded as 29 Table 23. Camp Highfields Program and Facility Features. 1. Physical plant Number of buildings constructed and occupied (BLDGS) Education program Sophistication of education program comprising staff, pro— gramming, support services (EDUPRC) Recreational therapy Number of recreation programs and facilities available (RECPRG) Extra-curricular activities Number of out-of-camp activities available (EXCURR) Resident population Total number of youths in residence at camp (NUMBOY) Staff personnel Total number of full—time camp staff members (NUMSTA) Staff-resident ratio Ratio of camp personnel to camp residents (SRATIO) Staff turnover rate Ratio of personnel leaving or joining staff to total number of staff (STALEF) 30 incidences of recidivism. Program participants could be separated from the camp in one of two ways: via graduation after receiving maximum benefit toward rehabilitation, or via termination, being excluded by the camp usually for extreme or repetitive behavioral aberrations. These two elements were included as treatment variables and appear in Table 2b. Table 2b. Features of Camp Highfields Residence 9. Resident tenure Period of time at camp (LENGTH) Separation from program by graduation or termination (RELEAS) In order to accurately chart the growth and development of Camp Highfields in terms of facilities, staff, treatment resources, and so on, extensive interviews were held with staff members in each of the major program areas. In addition, long time employees and an ex- camp director were asked to fill out a structured questionnaire to identify the dates of significant events which had been mentioned in the open-ended interviews. (The structured questionnaire is repro— duced in Appendix F.) From the information which was thus accumulated, a monthly value was computed for each of the eight variables identi- fied in Table 2a. These monthly indices encompassing the 69 months from January, 1967 through September, 1972 represented the stage of development of each particular resource or program at this point. Table 3 describes in detail the development of Camp Highfields during that nearly six year period. Table 3. January, 1967: February, 1967: June, 1967: August, 1967: September, 1967: January, 1968: May, 1968: September, 1968: January, 1969: April, 1969: July, 1969: September, 1969: December, 1969: March, 1970: June, 1970: 31 Chronological Development of Camp Highfields Camp Opens with main building and farm (BLDGS=2) Movies and shOpping in city (EXCURR=1) Classes begun with part-time teacher and library opened (EDUPRC=2) Weekend home visits initiated (EXCURR=2) Full-time teacher hired (EDUPRC=3) Basketball court set up (RECPRG=1) Second full—time teacher hired (EDUPRC=4) Nature trail marked out (RECPRG=2) Field trips to Lansing sports events (EXCURR=3) Friends allowed to visit residents (EXCURR=4) Shop building erected (BLDGS=3) Shop class taught by volunteer (EDUPRC=5) Hunting permitted for residents (RECPRG=3) VFW gymnasium used for athletics (RECPRG=4) Track program begun (RECPRG=5) Participation in baseball league arranged and golf taught (RECPRG=7) Cabin #1 erected (BLDGS=4) Remedial Education orientation adopted (EDUPRC=6) Golf dropped from program (RECPRG=6) Participation in basketball league begun (RECPRG=7) Job orientation classes started (EDUPRC=7) Formal shop instruction offered (EDUPRC=8) Lake dug and filled in (RECPRG=8) Work-study program started (EXCURR=5) 32 Table 3. (cont'd.). August, 1970: September, 1970: June, 1971: July, 1971: September, 1971: December, 1972: Cabin #2 and #3 built (BLDGS=6) Recreation classes offered (RECPRG=9) Farm work program initiated (EXCURR=6) Cabin #4 erected (BLDGS=7) Field mowed for football, etc. (RECPRG=9) Half-time teacher joins staff (EDUPRC=10) Maximum values in each area are: BLDGS=7 EDUPRG=lO RECPRG=9 EXCURR=6 33 Camp records did not provide any information as to the specific participation by individual residents in various aspects of the camp program. Therefore the exact "treatment" that any youth received could not be identified. It was only possible to identify the level of sophistication that existed in these various treatment resources during a boy's period of residence. Thus monthly scores were summed over the period of each youth's tenure at Camp Highfields and then averaged to provide one mean value for each of the eight categories which describe the camp as that boy knew it. Since information about total staff membership, staff turnover rate, and staff-resident ratio was extremely unreliable for the 22 months prior to November 1968, information for the 22 youths in residence during that time was treated as missing data. A monthly summary of these three variables plus resident population is presented in Appendix G. Post-release Follow-up Data Since Camp Highfields is chartered as a treatment facility for (boys through age sixteen, adolescents who are released at age seven- teen or earlier are faced with a choice between two major life arenas: school or employmeht. Further there is a choice of law- abiding versus law-violating behavior possibly in the context of a peen group. The post-release follow—up indices, therefore, were designed to tap the most significant areas of involvement in late adolescence/early adulthood. The various criteria, variable code names, and sources of data are presented in Table 4. (A scoring key for variables with usable data appears in Appendix H.) 34 Table 4. The Post—release Follow-up Profile. Measurement Domain Data Source 1. School performance 1. Lansing School District files Record of disciplinary suspensions/ expulsions (ABEHAV) Standardized achievement test score following release (ATESTS) Voluntarily leaving school before graduating (DRPOUT) Grade point average after release (AGPA) 2. Employment experience 2. Social Security files; personal Number of paid jobs held after interview release (NUMJOB) Reason for termination of employ- ment, if any (JOBEND) 3. Peer group relationship 3. Personal interview Involvement in delinquent peer group (APEERS) 4. Police record 4. Lansing Police Depart- ment juvenile and Seriousness index of victimless adult files crimes during first year follow-up (LPDAll) Seriousness index of property crimes during first year follow-up (LPDA21) Seriousness index of crimes against persons during first year follow-up ’(LPDA31) Seriousness index of victimless crimes during second year follow-up (LPDA12) Seriousness index of property crimes during second year follow-up (LPDA22) 35 Table 4. (cont'd.). Seriousness index of crimes against persons during second year follow—up (LPDA32) Length of time after release to first recorded police contact (LATENT) Total number of recorded police contacts during follow—up period (NUMCRA) 5. Probate Court Involvement 5, Ingham County Pro— bate Court files Subsequent assignment by court to correctional facility (PLCMNT) 36 Aside from gathering information descriptive of community adjust- Inent following release from Camp Highfields, an additional area of interest was residents' reaction to their experience at the camp. A letter from the then—current camp director introducing the study and its director and requesting ex-residents' cooperation was sent out accompanied by an explanatory letter from the study director. A pre-addressed, stamped postcard was included by which the subject would agree to inspection of his school file and indicate his willing- ness to participate in a brief interview. (Refer to Appendices J1, J2, and J3 for samples of correspondence with return postcard.) A slightly amended version of these same letters was sent to youths under age 17 since their status as legal minors made parental per- mission necessary. (Samples of letters and postcard appear in Appendices K1, K2, and K3.) The response rate was an abysmally low 4%; only four ex-residents returned the postcard signifying their interest in participating in a brief interview. It was thought that since this particular group of youths was likely to be highly mobile, a higher return rate might be achieved through an appeal to one or both parents at their last known address. Consequently a second letter was mailed out to parents, again accompanied by a stamped, pre-addressed postcard. (See Appendices L1, L2, and L3 for examples.) This appeal for information concerning their son's whereabouts generated only two additional responses, and both subjects were inaccessible for interview. The extremely depressed response rate, upon consideration, was not unexpectedly low. Given that some subjects left Camp Highfields as 37 much as 6% years prior to this follow—up effort, and that this population as a whole is transient in nature, many youths were no longer living in Lansing, or were in the military or were in prison. Furthermore some percentage of them were likely still involved in criminal activities so that guarantees of confidentiality could not provide sufficient reassurance of anonymity. Even for those not engaged in illegal activity, Camp Highfields probably was viewed retrospectively as a punitive experience so that diffused altruism was insufficient incentive to motivate even minimal cooperation. As a consequence of the small number of responses received, the telephone interview was abandoned as a data collection device. (Proposed interview protocol appears in Appendix M.) This necessi- tated dropping employment experience as a follow—up measure since access to Social Security records could be provided only with a signed released form. Similar problems with use of school disciplinary records and standardized achievement test scores plagued the follow-up of these youths as had been encountered in constructing the pre-admission profile. Therefore these measures were omitted and only the post- ' release grade point average was retained. Without a personal interview there was no source of information about peer group relationships, so this weak but unique measure of whether Camp Highfields had in some way affected the residents' value system had to be discarded as well. In addition to indices of serious- ness of police contacts in each of the three categories of offenses during the first and second years following Highfields residency, 38 the total number of recorded police contacts was computed, as was the "latency" period following release--length of time to first con- tact with police authorities. Rather than duplicate essentially the same information about illegal activities from Probate Court records, a dichotomous measure was constructed to indicate whether the youth was placed by the Court in another juvenile or adult correctional institution. In the main these placements were to the Boys' Training School (BTS) in Michigan; a smaller number involved incarceration in Jackson State Prison, and even fewer represented a second committment to Camp Highfields. RESULTS Summary Statistics and Raw Correlation A primary concern of this study was to collect valid and reliable evidences of post-treatment community adjustment in order to provide systematic information about types and extent of recidivism. In several instances, examination of raw data and summary statistics bears directly on this purpose. Of the 99 boys included in this study, 32 or approximately one—third of the sample were terminated from Camp Highfields by the camp staff; in most cases exclusion from the facility followed repeated rule-breaking or several run—away incidents. The dichotomous variable concerning separation from the facility (RELEAS) was strongly correlated with the resident tenure variable (LENGTH) at the level r = .55. This relationship is not surprising since many exclusions from the program occurred during the first month or two of residency due to an "inability to make a necessary adjust- ment to program demands." It is noteworthy that the manner of leaving Highfields also was significantly related to subsequent assignment to a correctional facility (PLCMNT) at r = .48. It is a strong possi- bility that the observed relationship may be accounted for by an un- known third factor descriptive of the subjects themselves. Subsequent to release from Camp Highfields, 12% of the youths had their first contact with police authorities within the first four weeks of "freedom"; an additional 11% came to the official attention 39 40 of Lansing police during the second month. Thus nearly one quarter of all ex-residents were involved with the police within two months of their release; an additional group may also have had contacts with the police which did not result in a formal entry on a "rap sheet". These police contacts may reflect the expression of youthful exuber- ance upon release or possibly even increased police awareness and/or surveillance. At the other end of the scale, 27 young men had no recorded contacts with police over the course of the one or two year follow-up period. This of course could relfect an undetected departure from the Lansing area or perhaps luck and skill at avoiding discovery of illegal activities, as well as true eschewal of such activities. The impact of Camp Highfields on school performance and attendance was negligible. Mean grade point average of 77 boys upon entering the camp was 1.03 on a four point scale (A = 4.0, F = 0.0) with a standard deviation of .53. The mean grade point average for 34 ex-residents was 1.17 with a standard deviation of 1.01. The slightly higher post- release GPA and larger standard deviation are the result of participa- tion by some youths in a high school re-entry program where grades of 3.0 and 4.0 are commonly given merely for attendance. Furthermore it was noted earlier that the outcome measure concerning school atten- dance (DRPOUT) had to be eliminated because of very low variance. A number of youths never re-entered the Lansing Public School system either by choice or by moving out of the school district. Of the 59 ‘who did re-register, not one had graduated from high school although six students were in high school during the follow-up period and several were given a good chance of receiving a diploma. Overall, 41 data from the school setting does not convey very positive results. When mean seriousness of involvement in all three categories of offenses were compared for the first 12 month and second twelve month follow-up periods, all three areas showed a decline in the index for the second year. If nothing else, this does suggest that passage of time plays a role in reducing delinquent behavior in late adolescence. Means and standard deviations for criminality follow-up measures are presented in Table 5. Table 5. Post-release Indices of Offense Seriousness per Police Records. Category lst ear 2nd year Victimless Crimes RT= 4.59 IE = 1.83 s = 12.38 s = 4.47 Crimes Against Property IE = 17.20 il= 6.07 s = 42.59 s = 12.21 Crimes Against Persons 'i = .77 'i = .37 s = 2.25 s = 1.50 N = 99 N = 75 Data concerning post-release committment to another correctional facility by the Ingham County Court were available for 93 ex-residents of Camp Highfields. Of this number, 33 or 35% had been assigned to another program within two years of release. Twenty-four adolescents had been committed to the Department of Corrections for placement at the Boys' Training School. An additional five individuals were incar- cerated in Jackson State Prison on charges ranging from breaking and entering, larceny from an automobile, larceny from a building, to armed 42 robbery. Four more youths were re—assigned to Camp Highfields. An examination of the raw correlation matrix of pre—admission and post-release delinquent activity in Table 6 as measured by police arrest records shows clearly that involvement in one category of offenses prior to treatment does not imply a similar type of viola- tion after release. Furthermore, there is no correlation even across offense categories between before and after treatment measures; no post-release measure of arrests is significantly correlated with any pre-admission arrest measure. Even within the two sub-groupings of pre- and post-residency variables the intercorrelations are quite low, suggesting that delinquency, at least among these youths, is not a global phenomenon but rather that the pattern of offenses varies from individual to individual. When pre- and post-treatment delinquency is looked at in terms of total number of contacts with police, there is a similarly low rela- tionship. The correlation between these two measures is only r = .14, not significant at the p = .05 level. A primary concern of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the Camp Highfields program in reducing delinquent behavior by its residents. Whatever the Offender follow-up might show, it could be argued that these effects were due to pre-treatment offender charac— teristics rather than to the Camp Highfields intervention. This alternative explanation may be confidently discounted if the ' 43 «NN. ENN. «qN. so. me. No. qo.l mH. ANN. ENN. Ho. 00.: mH. 00. No. No. *NN. RNN. NH. no. aaom. mo. «H. HH. *qN. Ho. NH. RMN. «NH. so. Ho. No. so. 00.: mo. «mN. amH. No. OH. mo. mo. mH. «Rom. NNH. «wH. co. «0. mo. No. 00. mo.0 so. No.l 00. no. «HN. «0.: No. «H. Ho. OH. «0. no. 0H. mH. No. HH. no.| mo. mo.n aHN. 0H. m m n o m w m N H Ho. V max mo. v 9.. pmmh waN wCHmsm maowumm umCHmwm mmBHuo udeummuulumom .m new» ch wnHusv moEHuo summaoum udeummuulumom .w new» ch NGHusv mmEHHO mmmHEHuOH> unmeummuulumom .m ummm umH wCHusw mcomuma umanwm OOEHMO ucOEumOuulumom .o amok umH weHusv mmeHwo muumaoua ucOEummwulumom .m ummm umH wsHusv mmEHuo mmmHEHuOH> unusummuulumom .¢ mcomumm umchwm mmsHuu ucmEummqume .m moEHuo_%quaoum ucOEummuulmum .N mmeHHo mmOHEHuOH> unmeummuulmum .H .mcuoomm mOHHom pom mmmamSOHuOm mmcmmmo mo mOOHch unwaummpulumom mam unmaumwuuumum mo aOHumHmuuou .o memH 44 pre-admission measures correlate weakly with the availability of camp treatment resources, which in turn correlates strongly with post- release outcome criteria Table 7 presents the matrix of correlations between the variables assessing offender characteristics and the variables representing treatment resources. Insert Table 7 here Examination of this correlation matrix for subject and treatment vari- ables reveals that two offender characteristics -- drug use and dis- ciplinary style of father -- consistently correlated with treatment resources in the range of r = -.20 to +.36, all of which are signifi- cant at the p = .05 level. The negative direction of the correlations associated with drug use by camp residents suggests that as the camp developed its treatment capability, it accepted more seriously delin- quent youths. This explanation is in accord with the oral history of Camp Highfields collected in interviews with present and former staff members. Other possible explanations are that drug use became more widespread in the society as a whole and/or the question of prior drug experience was included in the intake interview with greater regular- ity. Disciplinary style of youth's father was also correlated with treatment variables beyond the p = .05 level of significance. Out of a total of 63 correlations, only 19 reached significance at the .05 -level. These overall weak relationships make it reasonable to assume trust offender characteristics did not significantly influence the 45 Ho.I OH. No. HH. «H.I No.l «ON.I kamm.l aa.u emmum Hmpabz .mmouaommm unmaummuH mvHOHmszm memo :uH3 muHumHumuomumao Hovcmwwo GOHOOHEvMImum mo aOHumHOuuoo NH. «RNm. «NH.I ¢H.I mH.I mo.l mo.l «mN.I mH.I mucmpHmmu umnfioz 00.: mo.l 00.! mH.I Ho.I NH.I RwH.I «mN.I mo.l OHumu ucmvamu Immmum «HN. aemm. awH.I mH.I MH.- mo.l 0H.| EmN.I ma.- wmwuH>Huom umH:OHuuso Imuuxm «H. amN. «wH.I RNH.I NH.| mo.l wH.I «mN.I mH.I summons cOHummuomm HH. «0N. «NH.I mo.l mH.I mo.l MH.- «xmm.l 0H.I amuwoum GOHumuswm NH. «5N. ma.- OH.I NH.I mo.l HH.- «aom.t NH.I ucMHm Hmuamsem Ho. V max mo. v as OGHHQ IHome Hmcumumz OGHHQ IHome Hmcumumm mmoeuOMusH hHHEMM Oeoz Ovauso wO%OHaEO umnuoz mauMum OHEOGOOO IOHoom mHHEmm comm OOmOHHmaxm u:mE%OHaEm mmmmo mama uEmEO>Ho>cH aaoww Home ucmsvaHHOm .m OHHmH 46 availability of treatment resources, although these variables may well account directly for part of the variance in outcome measures. Correlations between Camp Highfields treatment resources and the post-release indices of offense seriousness in all three categories over the two year follow—up appear in Table 8. Insert Table 8 here The most noteworthy observation in Table 8 is the relationship among treatment resources and first year delinquent activity as measured by police arrest data. Ten of fifteen correlations are significant at p = .05, and the directionality indicates that as treatment resources were deve10ped and strengthened, delinquent behavior declined mark— edly during the first 12 months after release. Furthermore, the matrix demonstrates that this effect did not hold up for the second year following the date a youth left the camp. None of the 15 corre- lations concerning law—violating behavior during the second year differed significantly from zero. The inference drawn from Table 7 is that as Camp Highfields in— creased its sophistication, more deeply committed delinquents were accepted for treatment. Also related to expansion of the camp facili- ties was a reduction in post-release delinquency, at least during the first year of follow-up. When these two conclusions are considered simultaneously, transitivity suggests that despite a more serious delinquent posture by residents at point of admission, outcome 47 skew. so. 00.: no. «mN. «wH. «seq. mo. mH. «mom. «NH. amH. MH.I HH.I MH. NH.I mo. 50.1 «awm.| «aqm.l NH.I «Ho. %MN.I OH. #0. ma. «thN.l kkom.l HH.! «sHo. {mN.l mo. 50. «0H. «HN.I *«om.l NO.I «£50. «kmm. RON.I NH. mo. mH. «mN.I «ENm.I “0.: meme. keno. «wH.I NH. mo. «wH. «NN.I «Rom.| mo.l «Ame. «amm. NH HH OH m w n o n q Owcmmwo mo wOOHuaH OmmOHmulumom ruHs mmousomwm uaoeummue meOHmanm afimo mo GOHuMkuuoo aaqm.| «tom.l aaom.l kaNm.I «Rom.u maisoHHom new» umH wcHuav meHuo suummoum .N mal3OHHom “mom umH meHDU mmefluo No.1 No.3 no.1 mmOHEHuOH> .o OHumu uamemOu «amo. ammo. memo. Immmum .m mmHuHaHuum umHsuHuwso «amm. «aha. Rama. Imuuxm .q Emumoua «aom. «Rem. GOHumOuoom .m Emuwowm meow. ««wm. :OHumosvm .N paMHm «Rem. «me. HOOHmhcm .H m N H .mcuoomm OOHHom awn mmmnm=OHumm .m «Hams 48 Ho. V max mo. v ea mwmmHOwlumom muOMucoo OOHHOQ RNN. «NN. Ramm. EmH. «Row. «Esq. mH. «mN.I «mN.I RON.I *wH.I mo mopeds HmuOH .NH maisoHHom Hmmm NGN wsHuso moowuma «RN. «NN. «NN. an. so. mo. NH.I OH. mo. NH. NH. umchwm wOeHuu .HH QSISOHHOM new» ch wcHuso «NN. ENN. «NN. Ho. oo.l mH. 00. so. No. mo. mo. mmEHHO suummoum .OH QSI3OHHom new» ooN wcHuso mOeHuO «kmm. «NN. aNN. NH. mo. «Rom. no.1 mH. «0H. MH. awH. meHeHuuH> .m msISOHHom new» umH onuov maowuma «mH. «qN. Ho. NH. «MN. «NH. sawm.l «mN.I «HN.I «mN.I «NN.I uwchwm mmaHuo .w NH HH OH m w n o n q m N H .A.s.uaooo .w magma 49 measures showed a decline in severity of deviance. One element mediating between these two occurrences was the Camp Highfields treat- ment intervention. Cluster Analysis of Variables Cluster analysis (Tryon, 1939) is a statistical technique which can be used to objectively group together entities on the basis of their similarities and differences. Cluster analysis asserts that one can discover the general properties of objects by an objective clustering procedure of grouping variables without imputing causative underlying dynamics to the properties. The multivariate V- (or variable) analysis is an example of independent dimensional analysis in which succeeding clusters of items with high intercorrelations are "removed" from a complete correlation matrix in such a way as to minimize the number of composite factors that can reproduce the full array of intercorrelations without loss of generality. In the present study, the "entities" being analyzed were vari- ables describing camp residents prior to admission, treatment resources. available at the camp, and the adjustment of residents in the community after release. A subjects to variables ratio of 2.5 to 1 was main- tained which must introduce a note of caution in interpreting cluster structure, but is adequate to permit drawing tentative conclusions in an exploratory study. The initial empirical V-analysis generated seven clusters each constructed around a set of collinear defining variables. The results of this preliminary analysis appear in Appendix N. In order to reach a more optimal solution, the empirical clusters were re—analyzed with defining variables preset to give logical 50 coherence to each cluster. In addition, three minor clusters -— two duplets and a triplet —— were dropped at this point. The results of this preset key cluster analysis are presented in Table 9. Insert Table 9 here The four clusters listed in Table 1 describe the four most signi- ficant characteristics or properties which underlie the three temporal classes of variables -- prior to treatment, treatment itself and subsequent to treatment. The low inter-correlation among outcome variables that was observed in the raw correlation matrix appears in the cluster structure since two distinct clusters each encompass outcome measures. Cluster 1 is one of two clusters which includes both resident characteristics and post-release outcome variables. Although the relationship is not clearly drawn, in essence this group- ing suggests that youths from a more favorable socio-economic back- ground avoid recorded police contacts for a longer period after leaving Camp Highfields, but their eventual involvement falls within the most serious category of crimes against persons such as assault, armed robbery, sexual offenses, larceny from a person and so on. It may confidently be assumed that the inclusion of the variable "staff-resident ratio" in Cluster 1 is the result of a spurious correlation, since this item also has a high positive loading on Cluster 4 where it logically or rationally fits. The presence of the family structure variable is also an artifact insofar as it was 51 Table 9. V-analysis Preset Key Cluster Structure VARIABLES CLUSTER 1: Resident Socio-economic Status 1. 2. Higher home value (D) Lower staff-resident ratio Longer time to first police contact post-Highfields (D) Greater seriousness of crimes against persons during first year post- Highfields (D) More likely to have been employed pre—Highfields More likely to be white (D) Less intact family structure (D) CLUSTER 2: Low-risk Offenders 5. Longer tenure at Highfields (D) More likely to have graduated from Highfields (D) Less involvement in delinquent peer group pre—Highfields (D) Less likely placed in correctional institution post-Highfields (D) Less serious drug use pre—Highfields (D) CLUSTER 3: Pre—treatment Delinquency l. 2. More police contacts pre-Highfields (D) Greater seriousness of property offenses pre-Highfields (D) FACTOR LOADING .9449 .8133 .6620 .6080 .5167 .4846 .1389 .7830 .6613 .5678 .5644 .3810 .9175 .8892 52 Table 9. (cont'd.). VARIABLES FACTOR LOADING 3. Mother more likely employed outside .4533 home (D) 4. Greater seriousness of victimless offenses .3714 pre—Highfields (D) CLUSTER 4: Treatment Resources 1. Larger camp staff (D) , .9962 2. More extensive education program (D) .9924 3. Larger resident population (D) .9796 4. More developed physical plant (D) .9785 5. More extensive recreation program (D) .9688 6. More extra—curricular activities (D) .9669 Note: (D) denotes variables which are cluster definers 53 originally excluded due to low communality and was inserted as a pre- set definer in an attempt to refine the cluster. Cluster 2 could be labelled the "Good Kid Cluster"; it too includes variables both from the pre— and post-Highfields period as well as two items relating to camp residency itself. Youths depicted by this cluster were less seriously delinquent upon entrance to the program as measured by peer group involvement and drug use and thus would be better treatment risks. They were more likely to remain at Highfields for a longer period of time (a measure of adjustment to the demands of the program) and consequently more likely to have graduated than to have been terminated from the facility, which should make this group even less "at risk". Once released, this group evidenced lower recidivism as measured by subsequent court assignment to other correctional programs. The third cluster is internally consistent in portraying pre- Highfields delinquency. Three central indices of the extent of law- violating behavior are provided by seriousness of victimless offenses, seriousness of crimes against property, and total number of police contacts. At the same time the fairly strong negative loading on the variable "mother employed outside the home" suggests that youths whose mothers are not able to provide adequate supervision have a greater propensity or opportunity to engage in delinquent activities. Cluster 4 is clearly a descriptor of the sophistication of Camp Highfields as a treatment facility. The high intercorrelations among all the items in this cluster reflect the concurrent growth in all phases of the Camp structure as it expanded physically and 54 programatically. It is noteworthy that the treatment resource vari- ables form a tight cluster among themselves, that measures of post— release adjustment are not significantly related to increasing sophis- tication of treatment interventions. On the other hand, the pro— nounced collinearity of the treatment variables greatly reduces their freedom to be pulled into the other clusters. The relationship between increasing treatment resources and declining post-release delinquency that was observed in the raw corre- lation matrix is also alluded to in an inter—cluster correlation. In the initial empirical V-analysis a correlation of —.30 was found between the cluster of treatment resources and a duplet of post- treatment delinquency measures (subsequently deleted from the key clus— ter refinement). In the preset V—analysis, it was not surprising to find a negative relationship (r = -.35) between clusters 2 and 3 since the "good kid" items and "pre—Highfields delinquency" items are nearly conceptual reflections of each other. The negative correlation of -.31 between cluster 1 (resident socio-economic status) and cluster 4 (treatment resources) likely reflects the enrollment of more seriously delinquent youths as Camp Highfields viewed itself as more able to resocialize them. This too reinforces a similar conclusion drawn from the correlation matrix. O-Analysis and Typological Prediction The BC TRY analysis package also provides a technique whereby objects or persons can be grouped into clusters on the basis of their congruencies of similarities and differences. This procedure, called 0- (or Object) analysis, is a means by which typologies can be 55 constructed based on similar profiles of individuals' scores on a given set of dimensions. A number of advantages exist in forming typologies to classify diverse organisms (Tryon and Bailey, 1970): l) cumulative information about a "type" will enable any new individuals added to it to be better understood; 2) strengths and weaknesses of members of different types can be conceptualized in terms of the special characteristics of each type's profile; 3) among members of any given type, scores on single dimensions can be more accurately interpreted in light of the entire profile; 4) the "type" permits more accurate prediction of an individual's score on a criterion variable than if prediction were based on only a single attribute. The intent in carrying out a cluster analysis of the 99 youths who were participants in this study is closely related to all four of the above—named purposes. In particular it was of interest to investi— gate the relationship between O-analysis typologies and measures of recidivism. It was hoped that certain O-types would be clearly predic- tive of lower delinquency after treatment, information which could be of considerable practical value to treatment staff. The dimensions or factors employed to assign Highfields ex— residents to various O-types were the factor scores of each youth on the four clusters derived from the empirical V-preset analysis. The condensation method of O—analysis operates by computing simple sum Z—scores for each subject on each cluster whose definers had been selected in the preset key cluster analysis. These clusters were pre- viously identified as "resident SES”, "low risk offenders", 56 "pre—treatment delinquency" and "treatment resources". After assigning all 99 subjects to arbitrary sectors in the cluster score space, the OTYPE program selected as "core types" those subjects in sectors with at least 2% of the total group. All other subjects are reassigned to those "core types", a process that is iterated to a final solution of O-types plus a set of unique individuals. Results of the O-analysis are displayed in Table 10 where it can be seen that the 99 youths encompassed fourteen distinct typologies based on internally similar profiles of dimension scores. This is a notably large number of typologies, indicating that camp residents were a highly diversified group, at least when categorized according to configurations of cluster scores. Three trivial O-types containing fewer than five members were deleted from subsequent analyses. A graphic representation of the eleven remaining O-types is pro- vided in Figure 3. The mean score in standardized units on each dimen— sion for all O-type members clearly displays the various profile patterns. Greater significance can be attached to these patterns when a subroutine of the O-analysis program, 4CAST, is employed to compute mean scores for O-type members on criterion variables of interest. In this instance two criterion variables were selected which exhibited highest frequency and variance among available outcome measures. The index of seriousness of crimes against property during the first year after release, and the total number of recorded post-release contacts 57 Table 10. O-types Derived from Typological Analysis. O-TYPE NUMBER NUMBER OF MEMBERS OVERALL HOMOGENEITY 01 6 .9637 02 * 4 .9420 O3 6 .9044 04 11 .9494 05 9 .8845 06 * 2 ‘ .8676 O7 6 .9442 08 8 .9350 09 . 9 .9169 11 15 .9280 12 5 .9325 13 * 3 .9313 14 6 .8809 D 15 7 .9076 * - subsequently dropped from further analysis since N < 5 58 with police, in addition, had been excluded from the preset clusters because of communalities below .2000 and therefore were not inputs to the O-typologies. Thus it is possible to examine each O—type in light of the mean score its members achieved on these two important outcome measures. Figure 3 depicts both the typology patterns and associated criterion variable mean scores. Insert Figure 3 here Comparing O-type profiles which are similar except for the factor score on one cluster provides an opportunity to isolate the effect that one factor has on outcome as measured by total number of post—release contacts with police and by the first year index of crimes against property. The comparison can be of particular interest here when the cluster score which varies measures the availability of treatment resources. There are three pairs of typologies which demonstrate very similar configurations of factor scores on clusters 1, 2, and 3 yet which differ considerably on cluster 4 factor scores relating to treat- ment interventions. One such pair is O—types 7 and 8 in which scores on the resident SES cluster are near the mean, low risk offender scores are slightly above the mean, and pre-admission delinquency scores are about one standard deviation below the mean. However, the treatment resource cluster score of O-type 7 falls more than one standard deviation below the mean, indicating low sophistication of treatment while O—type 8 is characterized by slightly above—average development of treatment 59 Standardized Factor Score OTYPE 7 70-. (N = 6) Mean number post-release 60-- arrests NUMCRA=9.00 X " SO-I- —' — —" "'- """"' _ """" Mean serious- ness lst year 40-h property crimes LPDA21=59.59 30.. 20.- lO-b I I I I l I I I Resident Low Pre—treatment Treatment V-analysis SES Risk Delinquency Resources Clusters OTYPE 8 70-. (N = 8) 60-. NUMCRA=1.87 x = 50"" — "" ""' "" "" "" '— LPDA21=2.25 40-- 30d- 20.“- lOu-IL I I I l 1 g ' I V—analysis 3 4 Clusters Figure 3- O-typology Profiles with Outcome Variable Means Figure 3 (cont'd.). Standardized Factor Score NI >/ m‘N A. RIT ER Camp Highfields, Inc. Program Chairman /sk STATE OF MICHIGAN Appendix A3. WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 300 S. CAPITOL AVENUE, LANSING, MICHIGAN 48926 R. BERNARD HOUSTON, Director May 30, 1973 Mr. Bruce H. Ente, Graduate Student Department of Psychology Olds Hall ldichigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48823 Dear Mr. Ente: Mr. Charles Foster of the Ingham County Department of Social Services has routed to me your proposal to conduct a follow-up study of youth who were residents of Camp Highfields. Your proposal is of interest to the Depart- ment and could have considerable impact on the after-care program for youth. In order to provide the Department with additional details of your study and to assure that findings and recommendations from your study are communicated to the Department, you should contact Ms. Jane Holmes (373-6987) of the Family and Youth Services Program Division. Enclosed is a Memorandum of Agreement which you must sign and return to this office as soon as possible. The Ingham County Department has been ad- vised that your study will be approved pending the receipt of this Memorandum. This agreement defines your responsibilities to the Department. Specifically. confidentiality (item 2), and all research reports must be reviewed by the Department prior to dissemination (item 3). We shall anticipate return of the Memorandum of Agreement in the near future. Sincerely, t . I. --. 0" I u . II. t " .If .0 DIX}, f'i .IJ‘ I .};.’- fin", ‘ ’4‘ I f . Leland E. Hall, Deputy Director Research and Program Analysis , ‘ I cc/Marilyn Beery 5,‘3~.;,s_. Jane Holmes Charles Foster (Ingham County) LEH/eed Enclosure Appendix A4. 98 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT State of Michigan Department of Social Services . MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT executed as of the day of 3:9 , by and between the Department of Social Services of Michigan, having a nmajgling address of 300 South Capitol Avenue, Lansing, Michigan, #8926, (hereinafter "Enepartment"), and. Bruce H, Ente having a mailing address ofDePaY'tment of Psychology Olds Hall‘lh’chigan State University E. Lansing, Michigan 48823 (tnereinafter ”Principal Investigator") witnesseth: ‘W}HBREAS, the Department has been designated as the state agency to administer jprwavisions of Titles I, IV, X, XIV and XIX of the Social Security Act passed by true Congress of the United States of America, approved August 14, 1935, and any anuendments thereto or supplemental thereof; and WiflSREAS, the Department is authorized and empowered to adopt any rules and rwegulations and enter into any agreement or agreements with local units of gcrvernment as may be necessary to enable the State of Michigan, or such local tunits, or both, to participate in any such plan or plans as this Department may Cheem desirable for the welfare of the peOple of this state; and VHiEREAS, the Department in the administration of programs deems it reasonable arnd prqjer to utilize Research Consultants and university staff as principal ijavestigators to carry out needed research; and tfldEREAS, the Department desires to jointly plan projects with such principal in- *vestigators subject to the supervision of the Department; 6 IHDW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual convenants herein- after contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. 'The Principal Investigator acknowledges that he is acting as a ~representative of the Department and is therefore required to conduct himself in a professional manner at all times in the course of his investigations. 2. The Principal Investigator acknowledges that he is required to maintain case record and interview data as privileged informa- tion and is hereby making a commitment to maintain its anonymity. 3. The Principal Investigator acknowledges that any and all research reports must be reviewed by the Department prior to dissemination and publication. The Principgl Investigator agrees to perform the research in accordance with his preposal, transmitted to the Department on April 17, 1923 , and appended to and made part of this agreement. 055- 1167 (5- 72) 99 Appendix A4 (cont'd.). £5. The Department reserves the right to use and authorize others to use findings resulting from this study limited only by restrictions as may be imposed by grantors for this research. £5. Termination of this agreement may be effected at any date if mutu- ally agreed upon by both parties or upon ten (10) days written notification by one (1) of the contracting parties to the other contracting party. Violation of this agreement will be considered sufficient, but not exclusive, grounds for its termination. ZIt is mutually agreed by the parties hereto that no person on the ground of ssex, age, race, color, or national origin shall be excluded from participating 5J1, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination in any of ‘the activities or programs provided under this agreement. By mutual agreement the Department liaison person will be 1 an) employee in the Research &_Program Analysis Division.iof this Department. 13¢ WITNESS WHEREOF, the Department and the Principal Investigator have caused 'this agreement to be executed by their respective representative duly authorized to do so. Principal investigator agrees to provide further research details to the Family/and You er vices Program Division. Vi\ ‘ l, *_ JwA/ a/?’ \jxirij:_ i\w iéi:\V9 Leland Hall, Deputy Director Bruce-H. Ente Research and Program Analysis PMnCipa.I Investigator Department of Social Services Date: 431414) “’3 ”73 Date: Li rear; 10 [‘7’] 5 # ‘-' i Witnessed: Witnessed: I d . ,4 {,9 '1 a (l) .' ‘ 4 H" ‘3; a" v" r_:~.‘_"1"‘."‘.w' (2) ‘QQZréMxit‘J J.;J T;7.}\ USS-1167(5- 72) Appendix A5. 100 AIICHIGAN S'I'A'I‘I". UNIVERSITY 'u\\I |-\\\I‘\t. '\IiIIIIt.\\ m2: ---»._--— .-- -....— -.1 ...—--..— .—_—_ __._.. .- a. u- - - .... wan—.-...— DEPARTMENT OF PSYLIIOIOGY ' ()1 [)5 ”All June 10, I973 Dr. Leland E. Hall, Deputy Director Departnent of Social Services Research and Program Analysis 300 South Capitol Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48926 Dear Dr. Hall, Enclosed please find the signed Memorandum of Agreement which pro— vides for my access to Ingham County Department of Social Services records for ex—residents of Camp Highfields. The question I raised with your office by phone concerned item #3, ”that any and all research reports must be examined by the Department prior to dissemination and publication.” In particular, I wished to clarify the meaning of ”reviewed by" which I understand to mean "examined by”. It is certainly my intention to make available to all concerned parties the results and conclusions of my follownup study; I will welcome any comnents or criticisms of the manuscript you may wish to make. Since the data will be included as part of my masters thesis at Michigan State University, however, the final editorial control will have to rest with me. I fully expect we see eye-to~eye on this small point, but I felt it was wiser to verify that first. In any case I will be in touch with you when I return to Lansing late next week. Thank you for your prompt response to my request for access to your files and for the cooperation you have shown. Sincerely, Bruce H. Ente 101 Appendix A6. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY IzASI LANSING - MICHIGAN 4mm DEPAR'I'MI'ZN'I' OI" PSYCHOLOGY - ()l.l)5 IIAIJ January 28, 1974 Dr. Carl Candoli Superindentent, Lansing School District 519 West Kalamazoo Street Lansing, Michigan 48933 Dear Dr. Candoli, I am a graduate student in Ecological Psychology at Michigan State University, the program in which Charles Tucker recently completed his doctoral dissertation. My thesis involves a follow-up study and program evaluation of Camp Highfields, a residential treatment center for juvenile delinquents located near Onondaga, Michigan. (I have enclosed a synopsis of the study proposal for your perusal). In connection with this work I have been in contact with Dr. Ed Remick and Mr. Ken Head, since one of the major measures of adolescent social adjustment is behavior and perfor- mance in the public schools. In keeping with the school system Unidelines as explained by Mr. Mead, I attempted to contact the 99 youths chosen for this follow-up study in order to get their permission for review of their school records. Unfor— tunately at this point a serious stumbling block arose since a large per— centage of the letters were returned to me by the Post Office as undeliverable, an additional number of youths were in the military, in prison, or other— wise inaccessible locations, and a considerable number of subjects failed to reSpond at all; in sum only 6% of the Highfields ex—residents of the past six years replied. All youths released from Camp Highfields are 17 years of age or under so that returning to school represents one of the two ways in which a youth may re-establish himself as a positively functioning citizen, the other means being gainful employment. I am particularly anxious to include data from school records so as to counterbalance the essentially negative adjust— ment measured by police and probate court records I have examined already. Mr. Mead urged me to contact you regarding an exception to the usual re— quirement of individual concurrence to the use of school records. Of course my access to school-related data would be protected by the same guarantees of confidentiality as was my examination of police and juvenile court records i.e. no one but myself will see the information regarding any single individual, and all public presentation will be in the form of aggregate statistics such that no person or persons in the study sample could possibly be identified. The school program at Camp Highfields represents a major part of their rehabilitation efforts. Thus their staff is especially interested in follow-up data relating to post-release academic and behavioral adjustment in the public schools. School system records concerning CPA, achievement test scores, and disciplinary suspensions would probably be most relevant 0 Appendix A6 (cont'd.) 1 2 in this regard. Mr. George Bradley, Director of Camp Highfields, has indicated to me his willingness to write you directly in support of this request. I will telephone your office within several days that we may make an appointment to discuss this problem at greater length if necessary, at which time I could explain further the structure and purpose of this study. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Bruce H. Ente A endix A7. pp 103 LIICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING . MICHIGAN 48823 ' DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY 0 OLDS HALL February 9, 1973 Mr. Edward Remick Director of Research and Planning 519 w. Kalamazoo Ave. Lansing, Michigan 48933 Dear Mr. Remick: As a major part of my work toward the M.A. degree in psychology at Michigan State University, I am designing and carrying out a follow—up study and program evaluation for Camp Highfields, the residential treatment center for adolescent boys located near Onondaga. For the past three months I have been spending several days per week at Camp Highfields, familiarizing myself with both staff and programs as well as compiling a concise social history for each Lansing youngster who has been a camp resident since 1967. I have enclosed a summation of the research plan for your inspection; in essence the project involves comparing the social adjustment of camp residents prior to and following their tenure at Highfields. It is assumed that the treat- ment facilities provided by the camp are the crucial mediating variable. Since the school environment is one of the major socializing influences in a child's life, successful participation in the institution provides powerful rewards while unsuccessful involvement often induces considerable alienation. The role of school problems as a causative factor in juvenile delinquency is well known to you. Furthermore, one of the main goals of Camp Highfields is to provide remedial education so that upon graduation from the facility, most boys will be able to re-enter public school at their age—grade level. In sum the inclusion of school data such as academic performance, suspensions and expulsions, receipt of diploma will greatly increase the validity and value of this study. Of course my access to Board of Education files would be subject to the same assurance of confidentiality as my use of court records is. I will telephone you within several days in order to make an appointment at which time I could explain the structure and purpose of this study more fully as well as answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, smart as: Bruce H. Ente Michigan State University graduate student 104 Append... As. HIGHFIELDS A YOUTH OPPORTUNITY CAMP CAMP HIGHFIELDS, INC. . ONONDAGA, MICHIGAN PHONE 517 — 628—2287 CRAIG S. SPARKS, CAMP DIRECTOR February 5, 1973 Thomas M. O'Toole Chief, Lansing Police Department 124 West Michigan Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48933 Dear Chief O'Toole, As a major part of my work toward the M.A. degree in psychology at Michigan State University, I am designing and carrying out a follow-up study and program evaluation for Camp Highfields, the resi- dential treatment center for adolescent boys located near Onondaga. For the past three months I have been spending several days per week at Camp Highfields, familiarizing myself with both staff and programs as well as compiling a concise social history for each Lansing young— ster who has been a camp resident since 1967. I have enclosed a summation of the research plan for your inspection; in essence the project involves comparing the social adjustment of camp residents prior to and following their tenure at Highfields. It is assumed that the treatment facilities provided by the camp are the crucial mediating variable. Since many instances of unlawful behavior by juveniles are handled within the Lansing Police Department (e.g. as Reprimand and Release) and are never petitioned to Court, a complete picture of any boy's delinquent activity will be revealed only in both police department and probate and juvenile court records. Lieutenant Ryan has indicated to me that the juvenile division will cooperate fully in this project upon your approval. Of course my access to police department records would be subject to the same assurance of confidentiality as my use of court records is. I will telehpone you within several days in order to make an appointment at which time I could explain the structure and purpose ELMER ARNESEN MRS.LEONATAYAN JOHN aovo MRS.CHARLESCARR OTIS DAVIS MRS.ALFREDELL$ON GEORGE E. FOGLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ROBERT H. TRIMBY, M.D., PRES. MRS. H. DUANE ROOST, v. PRES. JUDGETHOMASL.BROWN,$ECRETARY ROBERTJ.McCARTHY,um.TREAs. MRS. H. STANLEY HARTMAN ROY PENTILLA CHARLES WINN HAROLD E. HICKS RONALD REECE DARRELL ZWICK KENNETH D. HOLLAND JACK RILEY FREDRICK KELLERMANN WARREN A. RITTER RICHARD D. LETTS MISS HELEN ROMSEK JONATHAN MAIRE ERNEST L. V. SHELLEY, PH.D. ROBERT L. OVERHOLT, D.D.$. HEATH C. STEELE 105 Appendix A8 (cont'd.). Thomas M. O'Toole February 5, 1973 Page 2 of this study more fully as well as answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, Bruce H. Ente- Michigan State University Graduate Student Appendix B Scoring Key for the Pre-Admission Offender Profile 106 Appendix B. Scoring Key for the Pre—admission Offender Profile 1. Individual descriptors Age at admission to program (NEWAGE): Record age in months Race of resident (ETHNIC): Record 2 if white, 1 if non—white 2. Lifestyle descriptors Paid employment experience (JOBS): Record 2 if held paying job, 1 if never held paying job Involvement in delinquent peer group (PEERS): Record 2 if not involved in group delinquency, 1 if involved with delin— quent peer group Use of drugs (DRUGS): Record 5 if no drug use, 4 if smokes cigarettes, 3 if drinks alcohol, 2 if smokes marijuana or sniffs glue, 1 if uses LSD, cocaine, barbiturates, amphetamines, heroin Verbalized goals for future (GOALS): Record 2 if expressed any goals, 1 if no expressed goals 3. Family descriptors Extent of nuclear family intactness (FAMILY): Record 7 if living with both natural parents, 6 if living with two adoptive parents, 5 if living with relatives who welcomed youth's presence, 4 if living with one parent and one step— parent, 3 if living with one widowed parent, 2 if living with one divorced or separated parent, 1 if lived in institutional settings Mother employed outside the home (MOMHOM): Record 2 if mother not employed outside home, 1 if employed Family socioeconomic status (SES): Record rating of father's occupation from Bogue's SEA Index Paternal disciplinary style (PADISC): Record 9.7 if reasonable limits and freedoms, 3.0 if harsh, rigid and punitive, 2.2 if no limits or controls, 1.8 if inconsistent, vacillating between punishment and disinterest Maternal disciplinary style (MADISC): Same categories and scores as above 107 Appendix B (cont'd.). Neighborhood demographic descriptors Record all data as it appears in U. S. Bureau of the Census 1970 Block Statistics School descriptors Grade point average for two years preceding admission (BGPA): Record average of all course grades entered on permanent school record. Police record descriptors Record total of scores for each offense committed within each of three categories -- victimless crimes, crimes against property, crimes against persons. See Appendix E2 for seriousness index of each offense Total number of recorded police contacts (NUMCRB): Record number of entries appearing in police department juvenile files Appendix C Array of Father's Occupations with Socio-economic Achievement Scores 108 Appendix C. Array of Father's Occupations with Socio—economic Achievement Scores Number Occupation SEA Index 1 Nursery worker 15 4 Janitor 18 2 Construction laborer 19 14 Factory laborer 20 1 Railroad worker ' 21 1 Cook 21 2 Painter 22 1 ' Tire builder 22 1 Carpenter 23 1 Watchman 23 1 Window washer 23 7 Truck driver 23 l Fork-lift Operator 23 1 Carpet installer 23 1 Junk dealer 23 3 Metal press operator 23 1 Bartender 24 1 Tile layer 25 2 Mechanic 25 2 Brick mason 25 1 Welder 25 1 Tinsmith 27 1 Heating/AC Installer 27 109 Appendix C (cont'd.). Number Occupation SEA Index 1 Line repairman 29 1 Salesman 29 1 Engineering draftsman ' 29 1 Electrician 29 1 Post office worker 30 1 Electrical repairman 30 1 Die maker 31 1 Store manager 32 5 Plant foreman 34 1 Customer service representative 34 1 Brick contractor 38 3 Unemployed # 2 Imprisoned # 6 Deceased # 13 No data # #: Mother's occupation was the source of SEA Index score. If neither parent was employed, index was set at O. In 15 cases, SEA Index was zero. Total N = 94 Mean index score = 20.37 Standard deviation = 9.59 Appendix D Rating Form for Parental Discipline Styles Appendix D. 110 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN 48823 DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY ° OLDS HALL January 14, 1974 _ To: Experts in Family Dynamics From: Bruce Ente, Graduate student in psychology Re: Rating of Parental Discipline As part of my thesis concerning rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents, casework reports were rated by judges as to the type of family discipline prevalent during each youth's early adolescence. I am now interested in ob- taining a consensus of expert opinion concerning the question of relative effectiveness of these several styles of parental discipline for raising healthy, well-adjusted children. Listed below are four fairly distinct types of child-rearing practices a parent could employ. Please indicate their relative value, in your Opinion, for producing healthy adolescents by placing four subscripted "X's’ at the appropriate points on the con- tinuum below. Style 1: Parent does not discipline child, sets no limits, exerts no control. (X1) Style 2 Parent sets reasonable limits and freedoms for child, fairly enforced. (X2) Style 3: Parent is rigid, abusive, inflexible, punitive toward child. (X3) Style 4: Parent is inconsistent, arbitrarily alternating between #1 and #3. (X4) Most Least effective,l J , L , , , ,g , . , effective, functional' ' ' ' ' ' functional Appendix E Rating Form and Classification of Juvenile and Adult Offenses with Seriousness Scores ' Appendix E1. 111 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST IANSING - MICHIGAN 43523 DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY ° OLDS HAL]- June ll, l973 T0: Juvenile Justice System Professionals FROM: Bruce H. Ente, Michigan State University graduate student RE: Classification of juvenile offenses Dear Sir: I am calling upon you in your capacity as an expert in one facet of the juvenile justice system to request your help in designing an accurate and contemporary classification of juvenile offenses according to their serious- ness. Listed below are most of the offenses which bring a juvenile into contact with police or court authorities, divided into categories of “victim- less offenses”, “crimes against property”, and "crimes against persons". Within each category I would like you to indicate your assessment of the relative seriousness of each offense by placing the appropriate number in the blank to the left (1 = leagtgggrjppsj 2 = somewhat more serious, etc.). Please indicate ties by assigning the same rank to two or more offenses. At your earliest convenience would you please take the few minutes necessary to fill out this form and return it in the envelope provided? I appreciate your cooperation. \ 'I 1‘ " .CT‘TIi "x NIC‘ID-J L ' \ J \k‘ Bruce H. Ente VICTIMLESS CRIMES CRIMES AGAINST CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY PERSONS Glue sniffing Malicious destruction Assault Carrying concealed Joyriding ____ Larceny from person weapon Illegal entry Lewd behavior _____ Run away ' Arson ‘ Unarmed robbery ..n PUbliC intoxication Larceny from building Sale of drugs .___.5Ch001 truancy Forgery Assault and battery .____ Possession Of Possession of stolen Carnal knowledge of a alcohol property minor . Incorrigible Breaking and entering Armed robbery ____ Drunk and dlSOI" Larceny of bicycle derly . "Auto theft (UDAA) __ Curfew violation Shoplifting . ____.Disorderly condUCt . T_._larceny from FBSIdGOCG POSSESSION Of Trespassing . . marijuana Uttering and publishing H! Unlawful use Of Larceny from vehicle F.1.Y‘n5um ' IL: I I I.---A'1: 112 Appendix E2. Categories of Juvenile and Adult Offenses with Serious- ness Scores Victimless Crimes Offense Seriousness Index Curfew violation 2.50 School truancy 3.00 Runaway 3.75 Possession of alcohol 4.25 Incorrigible 5.25 Disorderly conduct 5.75 Public intoxication 6.25 Possession of marijuana 6.25 Drunk & disorderly 8.50 Carrying a concealed weapon 10.38 Glue sniffing 10.75 Unlawful use of a firearm 11.38 Crimes Against Propergy Offense Seriousness Index Trespassing 2.50 Larceny of bike 3.75 Joyriding 5.00 ShOplifting 5.50 Possession of stolen property 5,75 Forgery 5.88 Malicious destruction of property 7,25 Attempted breaking and entering 7,25 113 Appendix E2 (cont'd.). Crimes Against Property Offense Seriousness Index Uttering and publishing 7.50 Illegal entry 8.00 Larceny from vehicle 8.63 Larceny from building . 12.25 Larceny from residence 12.75 Breaking and entering 13.50 Auto theft (UDAA) 14.00 Arson 14.25 Crimes Against Persons Offense Seriousness Index Lewd behavior 1.00 Larceny from person 2.50 Unarmed robbery 3.75 Sale of drugs 4.50 Unlawful carnal knowledge of minor 4.75 Assault 5.75 Assault and battery 6.50 Armed robbery 7.25 Appendix F Camp Highfields Resources Questionnaire 114 Appendix F. Camp Highfields Resources Questionnaire Please indicate the date on which each of these events occurred. I. Physical Plant Opening of main building with boys Expansion to boys on Expansion to boys on Expansion to boys on Construction of cabin cabin cabin cabin J-‘WNH Construction of shOp building Acquisition of farm II. Staff Caseworker(s) hired Increased to as of _—-— Increased to _____as of Psychologist hired Supervisors hired Recreation therapist hired Educational director hired Teachers hired M. S. U. volunteer program initiated ROTC volunteer program initiated III. Education Program Classes begun Library started Job orientation classes Shop instruction 115 Appendix F (cont'd.). IV. Recreation program Basketball court erected Field mowed for baseball/football in camp Use of VFW gymnasium Lake put in Fishing equipment acquired/lake stocked Nature trail opened Hunting permitted V. Out-of-camp programs Weekend home visits Movies/shopping in city Sports events in Lansing Co-op work program Farm work program Friends allowed visits in camp VI. Types of reward and punishment Assignment to cabins: From to Paddling: From to Extra details: From to Denial of privileges: From to Farm-work: From to 'Running laps: From to Appendix G Growth of Camp Highfields Staff and Resident Population Appendix G. 116 Growth of Camp Highfields Staff and Resident Population Staff Resident Staff Staff turnover resident Year Month population size rate ratio 1967 January 3 Missing Data February 7 March 7 April 8 May 11 June 11 July 14 August 15 September 20 October 21 November 22 December 25 1968 January 23 Missing Data February 23 March 21 April 24 May 25 June 24 July 22 August 23 September 23 October 24 Appendix G (cont'd.). 117 Staff Resident Staff Staff turnover resident Year Month pOpulation size rate rate 1968 November 24 8 .50 .33 December 24 10 .20 .42 1969 January 24 10 .00 .42 February 24 10 .00 .42 March 24 10 .00 .42 April 32 10 .20 .31 May 30 10 .10 .33 June 32 9 .11 .28 July 32 9 .00 .28 August 32 10 .10 .31 September 32 10 .10 .31 October 32 12 .08 .38 November 32 13 .08 .41 December 32 15 .13 .47 1970 January 31 15 .00 .48 February 32 15 .00 .47 March 32 15 .00 .47 April 32 15 .00 .47 May 32 15 .00 .47 June 32 15 .00 .47 July 32 15 .00 .47 Appendix G (cont'd.). 118 Staff Resident Staff Staff turnover resident Year Menth population size rate rate 1970 August 38 15 .13 .39 September 47 16 .06 .34 October 47 17 .06 .36 November 48 17 .00 .36 December 48 16 .00 .33 1971 January 48 16 .oo .33 February 48 16 .00 .33 March 48 17 .12 .36 April 48 18 .00 .38 May 46 19 .00 .41 June 47 19 .00 .40 July 45 10 .15 .44 August 42 21 .00 .50 September 46 21 .19 .46 October 48 21 .00 .44 November 48 20 .05 .42 December 43 20 .10 .47 1972 January 46 22 .09 .48 February 48 22 .00 .46 March 45 22 .00 .49 Appendix G (cont'd.). 119 Staff Resident Staff Staff turnover resident Year Month population size rate ratio 1972 April 47 22 .00 .47 May 48 22 .00 .46 June 46 22 '.00 .48 July 45 24 .04 .53 August 41 22 .09 .54 September 43 23 .18 .53 October 42 24 .08 .57 November 45 23 .09 .51 December 43 27 .11 .63 Appendix H Scoring Key for the Post-release Follow—up Profile 120 Appendix H. Scoring Key for The Post-release Follow—up Profile 1. School performance Grade point average after release (AGPA): Record average of all course grades entered on permanent school record 2. Police record Record total of scores for each offense committed within each of three categories -- victimless crimes, crimes against prOperty, crimes against persons -- for each year. See Appendix E2 for seriousness index of each offense Total number of recorded police contacts (NUMCRA): Record number of entries appearing in police department juvenile and adult files 3. Probate court involvement Subsequent assignment by court to correctional facility (PLCMNT): Record 2 if not placed in correctional facility, 1 if assigned to treatment or incarceration center Appendix J Letters to Camp Highfields ex—Residents with Return Postcard Appendix K1. 124 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN 48323 DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY - OLDS HALL Dear and Parents, This study of Camp Highfields is designei to improve the ability of the camp to serve the boys who are living there now and who will be there in the future. In order to do that I will be interviewing all Lansing residents who spent any amount of time at the camp in the last six years since your own unique experience both good and bad since leaving Highfields is an important contribution to helping the camp. Let me emphasize that all your responses will be completely confidential. Reports to Camp Highfields will consist of information on the total group of ex-residents and there will be no way that any particular individual could be identified. As you know a large part of the Hinhfields program involved school classes, so we are specifically interested in comparing public school records before and after a boy was at the camp. I would like your permission to review your school grades, again with the guarantee that I will be the only person.who sees them. Camp Highfields would like to receive information about your experiences as well as your opinions in order to improve their program. Please sign and return the enclosed card as soon as posible so I can contact to arrange a meeting time. If you have any questions please call me at 353-5015. I will look forward to talkinfl with you in the near future. Sincerely, Bruce Ente Appendix KZ- HIGHFIELDS A YOUTH OPPORTUNITY CAMP ' CAMP HIGHFIELDS, INC. ONONDAGA, MICHIGAN PHONE 517 — 628-2287 CRAIG S. SPARKS, CAMP DIRECTOR To Parents and Former Residents of Camp Uighfields: Gentlemen, During the brief six years Camp Highfields has been in operation, many facilities were added and many proerans and services were applied. He are now trying to determine what works best in helping boys become responsible young men. We would appreciate your help. In the next few weeks Q Ir. Bruce Ente from "ichigan Qtate University will be callinq your son for help in collecting some information. We want to assure you that any information from or about your son will be kept confidential. ELMER ARNESEN MR$.LEONATAYAN JOHN sovo MRS. CHARLES CARR OTIS DAVIS MRS. ALFRED ELLISON GEORGE E. FOGLE Sincerely, Mgr/We Crai .Sparks, DIRECTOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS ROBERT H. TRIMBY, M.D., PRES. MRS. H. DUANE ROOST, V. PRES. JUDGE THOMAS L. BROWN, SECRETARY ROBERT J. MCCARTHY, JR., TREAS. MRS. H. STANLEY HARTMAN ROY PENTILLA CHARLES WINN HAROLD E. HICKS RONALD REECE DARRELL ZWICK KENNETH D. HOLLAND JACK RILEY FREDRICK KELLERMANN WARREN A. RITTER RICHARD D. LETTS MISS HELEN ROMSEK JONATHAN MAIRE ERNEST L. V. SHELLEY, PH.D. ROBERT L. OVERHOLT, D.D.S. HEATH C. STEELE 123 Appendix J3. I am willing to be interviewed as part of the study of Camp Highfields. I also give my permission for exam- ination of my school record at the Lansing Board of Education. signature date PLEASE PRINT:- Name___ Address Phone number Appendix K Letters to Parents and Minor Camp Highfields ex-Residents with Return Postcard 126 Appendix K3. I am.willing to be interviewed as part of the study of Camp Highfields. I also give my permission for review of my school record at the Lansing Board of Education. Signature Date PLEASE PRINT: Name Address Telephone number I am willing to have my son interviewed as part of the study of Camp Highfields. I also give my permission for review of his school record at the Lansing Board of Education. Parent's signature Date Appendix L Letters to Parents of Non-respondent ex—Residents with Return Postcard Appendix L1. 127 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LA NSING ' MICHIGAN 48823 DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY - OLDS HALL Dear Parents, This study of Camp Highfields is designed to improve the ability of the camp to serve the boys who are living there now and who will be there in the future. In order to do that I planned to interview all Lansing residents who spent any amount of time at Camp Highfields in the last six years, but I have been unable to get in touch with your son directly. If you know his present address or telephone number, I would appreciate your indicating them on the enclosed return postcard so that I can send him a letter explaining the purpose of the study at greater length. As you may know, a large part of the Highfields program involved efforts to improve school skills. Therefore even if your son can not be interviewed in person I would like to compare his school record before and after he lived at the camp. I would appreciate your permission to review his school_grsdes, with the azsurance that all information will be kept completely confidential. Please sins and return the enclosed stawped card as soon as possible. Your cooperation will help make Camp Highfields a hetter place for young men to grow up. If you have any questions, please call me at 353-5015. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Bruce Ente Appendix L2. HIGHFIZIELDS A YOUTH OPPORTUNITY CAMP CAMP HIGHFIELDS, INC. _ ONONDAGA, MICHIGAN PHONE 517 -— 628-2287 CRAIG S. SPARKS, CAMP DIRECTOR To Parents of Former Residents of Camp Highfields: During the brief six years that Camp Bighfields has been in operation, many facilities were added and many programs and services were applied. We are now carrying out a follow-up study in order to determine what worked best in helping boys become responsible youne men. Hr. Bruce Ente from Michigan State University is conducting this study. We would request your cooperation and can assure you that any information regarding your son will be kept confidential. ELMER ARNESEN MRS. LEON ATAYAN JOHN BOYD MRS. CHARLES CARR OTIS DAVIS MRS. ALFRED ELLISON GEORGE E. FOGLE 2:; /%W Craig S. Sparks, DIRRCTOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS ROBERT H. TRIMBY, M.D.. PRES. MRS. H. DUANE ROOST, V. PRES. JUDGE THOMAS L. BROWN, SECRETARY ROBERT J. MCCARTHY, JR., TREAS. MRS. H. STANLEY HARTMAN ROY PENTILLA CHARLES WINN HAROLD E. HICKS RONALD REECE DARRELL ZWICK KENNETH D. HOLLAND JACK RILEY FREDRICK KELLERMANN WARREN A. RITTER RICHARD D. LETTS MISS HELEN ROMSEK JONATHAN MAIRE ERNEST L. V. SHELLEY, PH.D. ROBERT L. OVERHOLT, D.D.S. HEATH C. STEELE 129 Appendix L3. I am willing to have my son's school record examined as part of the study of Camp Highfields. Signature Date PLEASE PRINT: Son's name His address Telephone number Appendix M Telephone Interview Follow—up Protocol 130 Appendix M. Telephone Interview Follow-up Protocol A. Introduction of study director; explanation of the purpose of the research project. B. C. Questions pertaining to participants' readjustment to community life: 1. Have you been employed since leaving Camp Highfields? What type(s) of job(s) did you hold (skilled vs. unskilled, full vs. part-time, autonomous vs. closely supervised)? How long did you remain at (each) job? Under what circumstances did you leave your position? What were your reasons for leaving? Have you served in any branch of the armed forces since leaving Camp Highfields? If so, under what circumstances did you join the service (voluntary, drafted)? Where and with whom did you go to live directly after leaving Camp Highfields? Had you lived in the same neighborhood prior to your stay at Highfields? Do you presently have a group of friends you spend time with on a regular basis? Whatcthiyou usually do to relax or to have fun before going to Camp Highfields? Presently? What happened to the friends you used to spend most of your time with while you were at Highfields? Did things change much in your circle of friends during your absence? Did you enter (or re-enter) public high school after leaving Camp Highfields? Are you currently attending or have you graduated from high school? What is (was) your grade point average? Questions pertaining to participants' recollections of their High- fields' experiences: 1. 2. When you think of Camp Highfields, what stands out in your mind most vividly? What do you consider to be the one "best" thing about the Highfields program? Which part of the experience there was most meaningful or helpful to you? What do you feel was the least helpful or least worthwhile part of your experience at Camp Highfields? 131 Appendix M (cont'd.). Did you have any special relationships with Highfields' staff members? Were you involved in a formal counselling relation- ship at any time during your stay there? Do you feel that the counselling was worthwhile for any reason? Did your talking with a counselor help you to deal with problems differently or more easily than before? Were the classes you took at Highfields relevant? How do your present (or most recent) high school grades compare to those you received before going to Camp Highfields? Do you enjoy school work or school activities more or less than you did before going to Highfields? What was the purpose of the job orientation program at High- fields? Do you feel that you got anything out of the program? How useful or relevant does it now seem to you to be -- in terms of looking for or holding down a real job? What advice would you offer a boy presently at Highfields? What advice would you offer Highfields' staff? Do you feel that Camp Highfields is doing the best job it can to serve boys like yourself? What in your opinion would make it a better or more helpful place to be? Appendix N Empirical V-analysis Key Cluster Structure 132 Appendix N. Empirical V-analysis Key Cluster Structure CLUSTER CLUSTER CLUSTER CLUSTER l. 2. VARIABLES ' FACTOR LOADING 1: Treatment Resources More extensive education program (D) .9966 Larger resident population (D) .9929 More extra-curricular activities (D) ° .9768 More developed physical plant (D) .9756 More extensive recreation program (D) .9634 Larger camp staff .9528 2: Pre—treatment Delinquency More police contacts pre-Highfields (D) 1.0336 More serious property offenses pre—Highfields (D) .8293 More serious victimless offenses pre-Highfields .4036 Mother more likely employed outside home .3584 3: Post-treatment Delinquency More police contacts post-Highfields (D) 1.0473 Greater seriousness of crimes against persons during first year post-Highfields (D) .7941 4: Parental Discipline More effective maternal discipline (D) .9984 More effective paternal discipline (D) .9349 Higher school grade point average post- Highfields .3846 133 Appendix N (cont'd.). VARIABLES ° FACTOR LOADING CLUSTER 5: Neighborhood Demography 1. More high density dwelling on block (D) .9224 2. Higher percentage of block residents under 18 (D) .7013 CLUSTER 6: Resident Socio-economic Status 1. Lower staff—resident ratio (D) .8666 2. Higher home value (D) .8124 3. Larger time to first police contact post- Highfields (D) .6888 4. Greater seriousness of crimes against persons during first year post—Highfields (D) .6779 5. More likely to be white .5629 '6. More likely to have been employed pre~ Highfields .5268 CLUSTER 7: Low-Risk Offenders 1. More likely to have graduated from Highfields (D) .7865 2. Longer tenure at Highfields (D) .7128 3. Less likely placed in correctional institution post-Highfields .5433 4. Less involvement in delinquent peer group pre-Highfields .4702 5. Less serious drug use pre-Highfields .2730 Note: (D) denotes variables which are cluster definers 134 Appendix N (cont'd.). Variables excluded because of communalities below .2000 1. 2. 10. 11. 12. Socio-economic status of family Intactness of family structure Percent of female heads of household on block Percent of black residents on block Seriousness of crimes against persons pre—Highfields School grade point average pre-Highfields Age at admission to Highfields Staff turnover rate Seriousness of victimless crimes during first year post- Highfields Seriousness of victimless crimes during second year post- Highfields Seriousness of crimes against prOperty during second year post-Highfields Seriousness of crimes against persons during second year post-Highfields BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Abrahamson, David. The Psychology 9£_Crime. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960. Adams, S. A cost approach to the assessment of gang rehabilitation techniques. The Journal gf_Research iE_Crime and Delinquency, 4(1), 1967, 166-182. Andry, Robert G. Delinquency and Parental Pathology. London: Methuen, 1960. Bartlett, M. K. and J. M. Newberger. Educational Life Enrichment Program. Kids receiving academic motivation and socialization (KRAMS). Fourth District County Court, Sioux Falls, S. D. Independent School District #1, July, 1973. Becker, Howard S. Outsiders: Studies in_the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press, 1963. Berleman, W. C., J. R. Seaburg and T. W. Steinburn. The delinquency prevention experiment of the Seattle Atlantic Street Center: A final evaluation. The Social Service Review, 46(3), 1972, 323-346. Berman, Sidney. Antisocial character disorder in Ruth 8. Cavan (ed.) Readings_ig Juvenile Delinquency. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1964. Bogue, D. J. Principles 9£_Demography. New York: John Wiley, 1969. Braxton, D. Family casework and juvenile first offenders. Social Casework, February, 1966, 87-92. Browning, Charles J. Differential impact of family disorganization on male adolescents. Social Problems, 8) 1960, 37—44. Burgess, Ernest W. The economic factor in juvenile delinquency. Journal 9: Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 43, 1952, 29-42. Campbell, Donald T. and Julian C. Stanley. Experimental and Quasi- experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963. 135 136 Cicourel, Aaron. The Social Organization 9£_Justice. New York: John Wiley, 1968. Clark, John P. and Eugene P. Wenninger. Socio—economic class and areas as correlates of illegal behavior among juveniles. American Sociological Review, 26, December, 1962, 826-834. Cloward, Richard A. and Lloyd E. Ohlin. Delinquency and QpportuniEy: .A_Theory 9f_Delinquent Gangs. New York: The Free Press, 1960. Cohen, Albert K. Delinquent Boys: The Culture qf the Gang. New York: The Free Press, 1955. - Cohen, Albert K. Deviance and Control. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966. Cole, C. W., E. R. Oetting, and R. W. Miskimins. Self—concept therapy for adolescent females. Journal q§_Abnormal Psychology, 14(6), 1969, 642-645. Coleman, J. S. Equality qf_Educational Opportunity. Washington, D. C.:- Department of HEW, 1966. Davis, James A. A partial coefficient for Goodman and Kruskal's gamma. Journal qf_American Statistical Association,_62, March, 1967, 189-193. Dentler, Robert and Lawrence J. Monroe. Early adolescent theft. American Sociological Review,_26, October, 1961, 733-743. Dinitz, Simon, Russell Dynes and Alfred C. Clarke. Deviance. New York: Oxford University Press, 1969. Draper, N. R. and H. Smith. Applied Regression Analysis. New York: John Wiley, 1966. Durkheim, Emile. Suicide: A_Study iu_Sociology. John Spaulding and George Simpson (trans.) New York: The Free Press, 1961. Duxbury, E. Evaluation of youth service bureaus. State of California: Department of Youth Authority, 1973. Eaton, Joseph W. and Kenneth Polk. _A Study 9f_Probation Department Referrals. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1961. Elliott, D. S. and R. LeBouef. Final report: Lincoln Youth Services System evaluation. Lincoln, Nebraska. Boulder, Colorado: Behavioral Research and Evaluation Corporation, September, 1973. Empey, LaMar T. Delinquency theory and recent research. Journal qf Research 13 Crime and Delinquency, 3, 1966, 28-41. 137 Empey, LaMar T. and Maynard L. Erickson. Hidden delinquency and Social status. Social Forces,_44, June, 1966,-546-554. Empey, LaMar T. and Maynard L. Erickson. The Provo Experiment. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1972. Empey, LaMar T. and Steven G. Lubeck. Delinquency prevention strategies. Washington, D. C.: Department of HEW, 1970. Empey, LaMar T. and Steven G. Lubeck. The Silverlake Experiment. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1971. Empey, LaMar T. and Jerome Rabow. The Provo experiment in delin- quency prevention. American Sociological Review, 26(5), October, 1961, 679-696. Erickson, Maynard and LaMar T. Empey. Court records, undetected delinquency and decision making. Journal gf_Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 54, 1963, 456-469. Fairweather, G. W. Methods for Experimental Social Innovation. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967. Fleisher, B. The Economics_q§ Delinquenqy. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1966. Forward, J. R., M. Kirby, M. Mendoza and K. Wilson. Research and evaluation of Partners, Inc.: A volunteer intervention program for court-referred youth in Denver, Colorado. Report prepared for Partners, Inc., Denver,Colorado, 1973. Freeman, Beatrice and George Savastano. The affluent youthful offender. Crime and Delinquenqy, 1970, 264-272. Fuller, Richard C. and Richard R. Myers. The natural history of a social problem. American Sociological Review, 6, June, 1941, 320-329. Geiss, G. Juvenile gangs in President's Committee on Juvenile Delinquency. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1965. Glaser, Daniel. The Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole System. ——. Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs-MerEIll, 1964. Glueck, Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck. Family Environment and Delin- quency. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962. Glueck, Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck. Delinquents and Non—delinquents _iq Perspective. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968. 138 Gold, Martin. Status Forces in_Delinquent Boys. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 1963. Goldfarb, W. The effects of early institutional care on adolescent personality. Journal g£_Expgrimental Education, 12, 1953, Hackler, J. C. and E. Linden. The response of adults to delinquency prevention programs: The race factor. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1‘1), 1970, 31-45. Hooton, Ernest. Crime and the Man. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1939. Institute for Juvenile Research. Juvenile delinquency in Illinois: Highlight of the 1972 adolescent survey. Chicago: Illinois Department of Mental Health. Jenkins, Richard L. Motivation and frustration in delinquency. American Journal 9£_Orthopsychiatry, 11, 1964, 528-537. Klein, M. W. Gang cohesiveness, delinquency, and a street work program. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 6(2), 1969, 135-166. Kvaraceus, William and Walter B. Miller. Delinquent Behavior. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1959. Macoby, Eleanor, J. P. Johnson and R. M. Church. Community inte- gration and the social concept of delinquency. Journal of Social Issues, 13, 1958, 38-51 Martin, John M. Toward a political definition of juvenile delin- quency. Washington, D. C.: Department of HEW -- Youth Development and Delinquency Prevention Administration, 1970. Matza, David. Delinquency and Drift. New York: John Wiley, 1964. McCord, William M., Joan McCord and Irving Zola. grigins 9§_Q£ime: A New Evaluation of the Somerville - Cambridge Youth Study. New York: Columbia University Press, 1959. McCorkle, Lloyd, Albert Elias and F. Lovell Bixby. The Highfields Story. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1958. 139 McEachern, A. W., E. M. Taylor, J. R. Newman and A. E. Ashford. The juvenile probation system simulation for research and decision- making. American Behavioral Scientist, llflB), 1968, 1-45. Mead, George H. The psychology of punitive justice. American Journal of Sociology, 23, March, 1918, 577—602. Merton, Robert. Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, October, 1938, 672—682. Meyer, J. H., E. F. Borgatta and W. C. Jones. Girls a£_Vocational High: 52 Experiment iu_Socia1 Work Intervention. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1965. Miller, Walter B. Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. Journal gf_Socia1 Issues, 13fl3), 1958, 5-19. Miller, Walter B. The impact of a "total community" delinquency control project. Social Problems, 19(2), Fall 1962, 168-191. Monahan, Thomas P. Family status and the delinquent child. Social Forces, 32, 1957, 250-258. National Center for Social Statistics. Juvenile court statistics — 1971. Washington, D. C.: Department of HEW, 1972. Nunnally, Jum C. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw Hill, 1967. Nye, F. I. Family Relationships and Delinquent Behavior. New York: John Wiley, 1968. Nye, F. 1., James F. Short, Jr. and V. J. Olsen. Socio-economic status and delinquent behavior. American Journal 2: Sociology, 63, January, 1958, 318-329. Ostrom, T. M., C. M. Steele, L. T. Rosenblood and H. L. Mirels. Modification of delinquent behavior. Journal 9£_Applied Social Psychology, 1fl2), April, 1971, 118-136. Peterson, Donald R. and Wesley C. Becker. Family interaction and delinquency in Herbert G. Quat (ed.) Juvenile Delinquency. Princeton, N. J.: D. Van Nostraand Company, 1965. Pierce, B. K. A Half Century with Juvenile Delinquengy. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1868. Piliavin, Irving and Scott Briar. Police encounters with juveniles. American Journal 9: Sociology, 62, September, 1964, 206—214. 140 Pines, M. W. and D. Ridgely. Baltimore Youth Advocate Project: Final report. Baltimore, Md.: Mayor's Office of Manpower Resources, March, 1974. Powers, Edwin and Helen Witmer. .éfl Experiment ig the Prevention 2f Delinquency: The Cambridge — Somerville Youth Study. New York: Columbia University Press, 1951. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. Task Force Report: Science and Technology. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1967a. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. The challenge of crime in a free society. Washington, D. C.: U. 8. Government Printing Office, 1967b. Price, Ray R. Victimless crimes. Social Work,_19(4), July, 1974, 406-411. Reckless, Walter C. A new theory of delinquency and crime in Rose Giallombardo (ed.) Juvenile Delinquency: ‘A_Book g: Readings. New York: John Wiley, 1966. Reiss, A. J. and A. L. Rhodes. The distribution of juvenile delinquency in social class structure. American Sociological Review, October, 1961, 720-732. Reuthebuck, G. Evaluation of Kentucky's youth service bureaus. Kentucky Department of Child Welfare: Division of Administra- tive Services Research Section, October, 1971. Robison, Sophia. Can Delinquency B§_Measured? New York: Columbia University Press, 1936. Rosenbaum, C., J. L. Grisell, T. Koschtial, R. Knox and K. J. Leenhouts. Community participation in probation: A tale of two cities. Proceedings_g£ the 77th Annual Convention gf the American Psychological Association, 3) 1969, 863-864. Scarpitti, Frank R., Ellen Murray, Simon Dinitz and Walter Reckless. The good boy in a high delinquency area in Marvin Wolfgang, Leonard Savitz, and Norman Johnston (eds.) The Sociology gf_ Crime and Delinquency. New York: John Wiley, 1962. Scarpitti, Frank R. and R. M. Stephenson. A study of probation effectiveness. Journal g: Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 52fl3), 1968, 361-369. Schur, Edwin M. Labelling Deviant Behavior. New York: Harper and Row, 1971. 141 Shaw, Clifford R. and Henry D. McKay. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago: University Press, 1942. Short, J. E. and F. L. Strodtbeck. Group Processes and Gang Delin- quency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965. Slocum, Walter and Carol L. Stone. Family culture patterns and delin- quent—type behavior. Marriage and Family Living, 22, 1963, 202—208. Smith, Alexander and Harriet Pollack. Crimes without victims. Saturday Review, 53, December, 1971. Steine, Richard S. Delinquent Conduct and Broken Homes. New Haven, Conn.: College and University Press, 1964; Suchman, E. Evaluative Research: Principles and Practice 12 Public Service and Social Action Programs. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1967. Sutherland, Edwin and Donald R. Cressey. Principles gf_Criminology. New York: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1966. Szymanski, L. and A. Fleming. Juvenile delinquent and an adult prisoner. A therapeutic encounter? Journal gf the American Academy 9: Child Psychiatry, 19(2), 1971, 308-320. Tannenbaum, Frank. Crime and the Community. New York: Columbia University Press, 1938. Task Force Report. Strengthening program planning, budgeting, and management at Camp Ingham, Inc. Highfields. Paper presented at Camp Ingham, Inc. Board of Directors Meeting, Lansing, Michigan, January, 1973. Thomas, E. S. Effects of experimental school counseling of delin— quency-prone adolescents. Dissertation Abstracts, 28(7A), 1968, 2572. Thrasher, Frederick. The Gang. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1936. Toby, J. Affluence and adolescent crime in Task Force Report: Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1967. Trojanowicz, Robert C. Juvenile Delinquency: Concepts and Control. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, 1973. Tryon, T. C. Cluster Analysis. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Edwards Brothers, 1939. ' 142 Tryon, R. C. and D. E. Bailey. Cluster Analysis. New York: McGraw ' Hill, 1970. Vaz, Edmund. Middle~c1ass Juvenile Delinquency. New York: Harper and Row, 1967. Venezia, P. S. Unofficial probation: An evaluation of its effective— ness. Journal 2: Research_ig Crime and Delinquency, 2fi2), July, 1972, 149-170. Wattenberg, William and J. J. Balistrieri. Gang membership and juve- nile delinquency. American Sociological Review, 18, 1950, 631-635. Weeks, Ashley. Offenders §£_Highfields. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Univer- sity of Michigan Press 1963. Weeks, H. Ashley. The Highfields project in J. Teele (ed.) Juvenile Delinquency: AzReader. Itasca, 111.: F. E. Peacock, 1970. Whitney, Wilbur M., Jr. An evaluation of a community based delin- quency prevention program on the basis of group and individual employment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1974. Wilkins, Leslie T. Evaluation_g£ Penal Measures. New York: Random House, 1969. Wirth, L. Urbanism as a way of life in R. L. Warren (ed.) Perspectives 9§_the American Community. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966. 7111111111111111 If