JIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIF, ‘-

THESlS

"') f f.
o1 \-’ [1'

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled
Understanding Disproportionate Minority Confinement:
An Ecological Investigation of Multiple Placements of
African-American Male Delinquents

presented by

John Kent Mooradian

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

213,]: degreein Social__Sc_i_e.nce with
Concentration in Social Work

Amtrak

Major professor

Date W

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

LlBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

moo chlRCIDabDuepGS-p.“

 

 

UNDERSTANDING DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONFINEMENT:
AN ECOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION OF MULTIPLE PLACEMENTS OF
AFRICAN-AMERICAN MALE DELINQUENTS
By

John Kent Mooradian

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the degree requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
School of Social Work

2000

ABSTRACT
UNDERSTANDING DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONFINEMENT:

AN ECOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION OF MULTIPLE PLACEMENTS OF
AFRICAN-AMERICAN MALE DELINQUENTS

BY

John Kent Mooradian

This study explores the problem of disproportionate
minority confinement. Personal, environmental, family, and
juvenile justice system variables were used to represent
successive levels of the social ecology of 171 African-
American male adolescents who were adjudicated and placed in
restrictive treatment facilities for delinquency.
Descriptive data show that sample youth average 15.5 years
of age at intake, 2.89 felony offenses, 2.44 prior
placements, and 15 months in the most recent placement.
Sixty-five percent came from single parent families, and 86%
lived in urban environments.

Confirmatory factor analysis of stress, coping, and
family functioning measures indicated that this sample
evidenced significant differences from the normative samples
upon which the instruments were constructed. New scales
were developed from existing items to improve measurement of
these clinical constructs for this sample.

Correlational analysis did not support expected
associations of age at intake, status offenses, felony

offenses, adjudications, family tensions stressors, and a

ventilation coping strategy, with number of out-of—home
placements. Number of placements was positively correlated
with family functioning and single parent family type, and
negatively correlated with length of stay and program
completion. Length of stay was positively correlated with
successful release type, and aftercare placement in a home
setting, and negatively correlated with age at intake,
felony offenses, number of prior placements, and total out—
of—home placements.

Simultaneous multiple regression indicated that
ecological sets of variables are the best predictors of both
number of placements and length of stay in the most recent
placement, when compared to demographic, offense and
placement history, clinical characteristics, and family
characteristics models. For number of placements, the
family characteristics model was also a significant
predictor, and for length of stay, the demographic model was
also significant.

This study offers suggestions for further research, and
outlines implications for policy and practice. Preliminary
work for path analysis and systems dynamics modeling are

included.

Copyright by
John Kent Mooradian
2000

To my wife Kathryn, for her love, shown through patience,
consideration, and unwavering support during many difficult
times. To my children, Angela and Thomas, for sacrificing
parts of their father to the lengthy process of this
doctoral study. Also, to my mother, Shirley, for her
unconditional love, and to my father, Gerald, for his
example of hard work and joyful living.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The completion of this study would not have been
possible without a multitude of supports. Rena Harold
served as my committee chair. She epitomizes the
integration of affirmation and challenge. Despite her many
involvements, she remained always available and a steady

source of strength. I am grateful for her belief in me.

Ralph Levine made a personal commitment to an older
doctoral student from another department. He shared his
knowledge freely and encouraged exploration of unusual

issues. May his “retirement” be productive.

Victor Whiteman raised thoughtful questions and
exemplified endurance throughout this process. He conveyed

a faith in my work and helped clarify my ideas.

Bob Lee offered personal warmth, and expertise in
family practice and research. I have been honored by his

example of what it means to be a scientist/practitioner.

I would not have entered into doctoral study without
the experiences that raised my curiosity and confidence.
Many of these were guided and encouraged by Brother James

Caley, csc. May his soul rest in peace.

vi

I am indebted to Boysville of Michigan for
opportunities beyond expectation. Brother Francis Boylan,
csc, and Paul Neitman approved use of the data for this
project. Steve Kapp helped me understand the value of

applied research and nurtured a great friendship.

Finally, I am grateful to my clients, who have shared
so much with me over the years, through their trust, their

vulnerability, and their strength.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ....................................... xiii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................ xv
INTRODUCTION ............................................ 1
CHAPTER 1
DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONFINEMENT
OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN ADOLESCENT MALES .................... 6
Research on Disproportionate
Minority Confinement ............................... 7
Afrocentric Perspective ........................... 10

Special Circumstances of

African—American Youth ............................ 12
Racism ....................................... 12
Interpersonal Violence ....................... 14

CHAPTER 2
MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS IN DELINQUENCY PRACTICE,
POLICY, AND THEORY ..................... . ............... 17

The Invention of Delinquency ...................... 18

The Quest for Cause ............................... 21

Imperatives for Intervention ...................... 24

Changing the Child ................................ 25

Creation of the Juvenile Court .................... 30

Modern Practice Approaches ........................ 30
Family Involvement ........................... 32
Family Therapy ............................... 33
Intensive In-Home Services ................... 34
Multi-Systemic Treatment ..................... 37

viii

Correctional Model ........................... 39

Modern Policy Issues .............................. 40
Emergent Theories of Delinquency .................. 43
Strain Theory ................................ 43
Sub-Cultural Deviance Theory ................. 44
Rational Choice Theory ....................... 45
Social Control Theory ........................ 46

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH ON ECOLOGICAL FACTORS RELATED
TO DELINQUENCY ......................................... 48

The Relationship of Stress and
Coping to Delinquency ............................. 48

Conceptual Issues Regarding
Stress and Coping ............................ 48

Research on Stress and Coping
Related to Delinquency ....................... 50

The Relationship of Family Functioning
to Delinquency .................................... 56

Conceptual Issues Regarding
Family Functioning and Delinquency ........... 56

Research on the Relationship of
Family Cohesion and Parental

Control to Delinquency ....................... 58

CHAPTER 4
METHOD ................................................. 65
Statement of the Problem .......................... 65
Participant Sample ................................ 67
Data Management Procedures ........................ 69
Research Design ................................... 71

ix

.......................................... 72

Measures
Intake Form .................................. 73
Adolescent-Family Inventory of
Life Events and Changes (AFILE) .............. 73
Adolescent Coping Orientation for
Problem Experiences (ACOPE) .................. 76
Family Adaptability and Cohesion
Evaluation Scales (FACES II) ................. 79
Case Closing Report .......................... 82
Variables and Operational Definitions ............. 84
Dependent/Criterion Variables ................ 84
Independent/Predictor Variables .............. 86
Planned Analyses .................................. 90
Description of Sample ........................ 91
Associations ................................. 91
Multiple Regression .......................... 91
Schematic of Correlations .................... 92
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS ................................................ 93
Research Questions ................................ 93

Psychometrics of Clinical Assessment

Instruments ....................................... 95
AFILE ........................................ 96
ACOPE ........................................ 99
FACES II .................................... 101

Description of Sample ............................ 103
Hypothesis 1 ................................ 112

Hypothesis 2 ................................ 114

Chapter 6

Associations Among Variables ..................... 117
Hypothesis 3 ................................ 123
Hypothesis 4 ................................ 123

Multiple Regression Analysis of

Out-of—Home Placements ........................... 125
Hypothesis 5 ................................ 126
Hypothesis 6 ................................ 134

Schematic of Correlations ........................ 142

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ............................ 149
Measurement Issues .......................... 149

Intake Characteristics of

the Sample .................................. 151
Delinquent Behavior and

Out-of-Home Placement ....................... 154
Expected Associations with

Out-of-Home Placement ....................... 156
Additional Association with

Out-of-Home Placement ....................... 158
Other Notable Associations .................. 161
Explanation of Multiple Placements, .......... 162
Explanation of Duration of Placement ........ 164

Delimitations and Limitations of
the Study ................................... 165

Implications for Further Research
Using Systems Dynamics ...................... 167

xi

Implications for Juvenile Justice

Policy ..................................... 175
Implications for Juvenile Justice
Practice Intervention ...................... 177
Conclusion ................................. 178
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Correlation Matrix Showing Correction
for Attenuation ................................. 181
Appendix B
Systems Dynamics ................................ 186
Appendix C
University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects Approval....... ......... 190
REFERENCES ........................................... l 92

xii

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

LIST OF TABLES

Family Tensions Items and Factor Loadings ....... 76
Ventilation Items and Factor Loadings ........... 78
Personal Investment Items and Factor Loadings...78

Family Functioning Items and Factor Loadings....83

Research Questions and Hypotheses ............... 94
Psychometrics of Published Scales of AFILE ...... 97
Psychometrics of Published Scales of ACOPE ..... 100

Psychometrics of Published Scales of FACES II..102

Psychometrics of Scales Derived From AFILE,

ACOPE, and FACES II ............................ 103
Delinquent Careers of Participants ............ 106
Experience of Family Tensions Stressors ....... 109
Coping Strategies Used by Participants ........ 110
Post-Placement Destination .................... 112

Comparison of Study Sample With Agency
Population .................................... 115

Associations Among Demographic, Offense,
Clinical, Placement, and Program Variables....120

Demographic Regression Model for Number of
Placements .................................... 128

Offense and Placement History Regression
Model for Number of Placements ................ 129

Clinical Characteristics Regression Model
for Number of Placements ...................... 130

Family Characteristics Regression Model for
Number of Placements .......................... 131

xiii

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Ecological Regression Model for
Number of Placements .......................... 133

Summary of Regression Models for
Number of Placements .......................... 134

Demographic Regression Model for
Length of Stay ......................... . ...... 136

Offense History Regression Model for
Length of Stay ................................ 137

Clinical Characteristics Regression Model
for Length of Stay..................... ....... 138

Family Characteristics Regression Model
for Length of Stay .................... . ....... 139

Placement History Regression Model for
Length of Stay ................................ 140

Ecological Regression Model for Length
of Stay ....................................... 141

Summary of Regression Models for
Length of Stay ................................ 142

Correlation Matrix Showing Correction for
Attenuation ................................... 182

xiv

Figure

Figure
Figure

Figure

Figure

LIST OF FIGURES
Complimentary Structure of Social Control
and Social Treatment ........................... 19
Sixteen Types of Family Functioning ............ 81
Schematic Showing Linkages of Correlations....144

Loop Diagram Showing Unintended
Consequence of Placement ...................... 171

Simple Flow Diagram of Delinquency,
Placement, and Family Fragility ............... 174

XV

INTRODUCTION

Placement of children and adolescents out of their
family homes has a long history in the United States.
Removing young people from their homes has been the
“treatment of choice” for two hundred years. While such a
practice may provide particular advantages, it also produces
accompanying limitations on personal freedoms which should
be considered carefully in a free society. Questions of
justice for offenders and victims are raised, as well as
matters of equity in decision making, and the application of
social power.

This study was undertaken to better understand the
problem of disproportionate confinement of African-American
adolescent males in juvenile justice settings. African-
American males are more likely to be placed out of the home
than their European-American counterparts, and to be
escalated to more restrictive placements for relatively less
serious offenses (Snyder & Sickmund, 1999). Many African-
American males, once placed out of their homes, also face a
compounding process of continued confinement as decision-
makers employ escalating forms of social control (Snyder &
Sickmund, 1999). The current investigation focuses on
variables associated with accumulation of out-of-home

placements, and the duration of the most recent placement,

for a sample of African-American male delinquents, in order
to improve understanding of the higher incarceration rates
for minority youth.

The author’s motivations for completing this study
represent a range of personal and professional concerns.
Experience in the field with delinquents and their families
fuels not only a curiosity about the relationship of the
included variables, but also a commitment to improving the
operation of a system that attempts to meet dual needs. In
both treatment-oriented and correctional settings, it has
proven difficult to integrate public safety and effective
interpersonal intervention. Work with involuntary clients
in highly restrictive environments highlights issues of
self-determination and social control. Cultural sensitivity
sharpens a focus on the particular vulnerability of African-
American male youth to policies favoring placement and
external control. The values of the Social Work profession,
especially a concern with social justice, underlie this
attempt to deepen available knowledge and illuminate
possible alternatives for intervention at the treatment and
policy levels.

This study applies a systemic framework and ecological
orientation to find the fit of factors at the individual,
family, community, and juvenile justice system levels, in

order to explain forms of out-of-home placement for African-

American male delinquents. Existing quantitative data at
each level, from a large multi-site agency, were analyzed
with techniques that are appropriate for ecological
understanding. Primary analyses use descriptive,
correlational, and regression techniques. Preliminary work
for path analysis is presented, and disproportionate
minority confinement is discussed from a Systems Dynamics
perspective to realistically represent the feedback inherent
in the social ecology of the participants.

Existing research provides a basis for this
investigation as indicated below, but also evidences notable
gaps in specific knowledge of the environmental and personal
characteristics of African-American male delinquents.
Although the analyses undertaken in this study are subject
to limitations on generalizability, and suffer from less
than ideal psychometrics, they still offer knowledge about
this particular sample of participants and serve to
explicate relevant ecological relationships. The specific
research questions investigated in this study include the
following:

1. What personal, family, and environmental
characteristics describe African-American male delinquents
who experience out-of—home placements?

2. What are the observed associations of personal,

family, and environmental variables for African-American

TI-

“.4

 

 

 

. a liar

male delinquents who experience out-of—home placements?
3. Which sets of variables best explain out—of-home

placements for African—American male delinquents?

Within its limitations, this study is intended to have
value for practice, policy, and further research. Findings
should be applied tentatively, but offer incremental
information for directing clinical intervention and
prevention with African-American youth that centers on
reducing the negative personal impacts of ecological
factors. Policy decisions focused on reduction of
disproportionate minority confinement may be supported by
clearer specification of the factors that can be controlled
to stem the tide of confinement. Implications for further
research include identification of potentially relevant
variables that are not addressed in this study, suggestions
for improved measurement, and explication of foci for
qualitative study.

This work is organized in a way that is intended to
introduce the reader to several interrelated aspects of the
social ecology of African-American delinquent males,
describe the procedures used to conduct the study, and then
present and discuss specific findings for further
application.

Three brief chapters set the context for the study

through review of the current state of knowledge about
disproportionate minority confinement, development of
practice and policy, and research on the ecological factors
that are included in this study. Chapter One summarizes the
current state of knowledge about disproportionate minority
confinement, and the Afrocentric perspective. The second
chapter outlines the historical context of out-of—home
placement of delinquent youth, including modern policy and
practice developments, and emergent theories that purport to
explain delinquent behavior. The third chapter presents
research on the relevant ecological variables such as
stressors, coping, and family functioning.

Additional chapters present the structure and findings
of the study. The fourth chapter offers a statement of the
problem and describes the methodology and research
techniques used to conduct this investigation. Chapter Five
details characteristics of the youth in the study sample,
depicts a profile of the typical youth in this group,
identifies significant relationships between included
variables, evaluates various regression models designed to
explain forms of out-of—home placement, and presents a
correlational schematic that ties together the levels of the
ecological system. Chapter Six critically discusses the
study findings, and outlines implications for future

investigations, policy, and practice.

 

 

‘I’

 

Chaptor 1

Disproportionate Confincmont of African-American
Adolescent.uhlos

Differential disposition of juvenile cases involving
European-American and African-American youth has been
identified as a long-standing problem of significant
proportion (Hsia & Hamparian, 1998). Charges of racial
discrimination in Juvenile Court proceedings were initially
raised during the Civil Rights movement of the late 1960's
(Ferdinand, 1991). Subsequent policy measures were enacted,
including the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Act of 1974. This act, as amended in 1988 and 1992, issues
a mandate to reduce over-representation of minority youth in
confinement. The timelines for compliance have been
extended, however, and results vary by state (Howell, 1998).
Despite efforts on the federal and state levels, African-
American delinquent youth continue to be over-represented in
secure settings as compared to their European-American
counterparts.

The administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention has stated that an effective juvenile
justice system should treat every offender as an individual
and provide needed services to all (Bilchik, 1998). A
persistent inequity in disposition of cases associated with
race brings real human consequences and counters such a

system goal. Concern with the problem of over—

’)

 

 

 

representation of African-American youth in restrictive
settings has led to acceptance of the term disproportionate

minority confinement (Hsia & Hamparian, 1998).

Research on Disproportionate Minority Confinement

The bulk of published research on the phenomenon of
disproportionate minority confinement centers on
establishing and amplifying the extent of the problem.

Other related studies offer limited insight into causes,
potential interventions, and broader policy implications.

McGarrell (1993), in a study of differential
confinement rates across states, found that those states
with expanding “non-White” populations have tended to
incarcerate juveniles at a higher rate since the mid-1970's
compared to those states whose proportions have remained
relatively steady. This finding is interpreted to mean that
increased levels of punitive responses to juvenile crime are
linked to heterogeneity in the population, which could
indicate discriminatory practices.

Prevalence studies were conducted to outline the scope
of the problem of disproportionate minority confinement.
These studies estimated that one in seven African-American
males would be confined prior to his 18th birthday, while
the estimate for European-American youth was only one in 25
(Hsia & Hamparian, 1998). Another study indicates that

African-American males of all ages are seven to ten times

 

 

more likely to be incarcerated than comparable groups of
European-Americans (Brinson, 1994). While these
investigations were based on national data and yielded only
estimations as results, they provide some support for the
conclusion that minority youth continue to be
disproportionately confined.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (Sickmund, Snyder, & Poe-Yamagata, 1995)
concluded that African-American youth are significantly
over-represented at all levels of the juvenile justice
system. African-American youth comprise only 15% of the
United States’ population aged ten to seventeen, yet they
represent 25% of all juvenile arrests, 49% of the known
violent offenses committed by juveniles, 36% of the total
adjudicated juvenile cases, 41% of youth in detention
facilities, 46% of youth in long-term public institutions,
and 52% of juvenile cases waived to adult criminal court. A
review of these percentages also indicates that African-
American youth are dealt with in a more restrictive fashion
within the system, than are European-American youth, who
make up a much higher percentage of the total juvenile
arrests.

In addition, the data appear to show that African—
American youth are at increasing risk for inclusion in the
system. In 1983, minority youth represented 53% of the
population in secure juvenile corrections facilities, and by

1996, the figure had increased to 68% (Sickmund, Snyder, &

Poe-Yamagata, 1997). Between 1986 and 1995, the number of
open delinquency cases involving European-American youth
increased by 34%, while those of African-American youth
increased by 72% (Sickmund, Snyder, & Poe-Yamagata, 1995).

The only known longitudinal study of delinquents
released from residential care who are subsequently
imprisoned in adult correctional facilities also provides
relevant findings (Kapp, Schwartz, & Epstein, 1994). For
this sample of youth released from a private residential
program in Michigan, background and intake variables such as
race, family demographics, age, county of commitment, legal
status (delinquent, abused/neglected, status offender),
number and types of previous placements, and type of prior
offense history showed no significant correlation with
subsequent imprisonment as an adult. Similar findings were
evident for treatment related variables such as type of
residential program (campus or community-based), amount and
type of treatment contacts with the family, and number of
times a youth truanted from the program. Even more striking
is the lack of significant correlation between outcome
measures such as completion of treatment goals and type of
placement at discharge with adult imprisonment.

Adopting a delinquency typology originally presented by
Wolfgang, Figlio, and Sellin (1972), which structures
identification of repeat offenders as ‘recidivists’, Kapp
and his colleagues (1994) found that earlier conclusions

regarding juvenile recidivists being more likely to commit

9

 

 

future crimes also extend into adulthood, and provide some
evidence for the concept of an ongoing and dynamic criminal
career. In addition to bivariate analyses, their study used
logistical regression and event history analysis to examine
the predictive value of a combined delinquency/race typology
and found that being a “non-White” juvenile recidivist
placed outside the family home post-release, was
significantly related to higher likelihood of adult
imprisonment. These youth had nearly a one in five chance
of being imprisoned as adults, while White juvenile non-
recidivists who return to their families were four and one-
half times less likely to find their way into the adult
prison system. Kapp, Schwartz and Epstein (1994) focused on
the interaction of race, delinquent activity, family
influences, and confinement. These results may also inform
the construction of a dynamic model by illuminating the
effects of repeated adjudications and confinements.
Moreover, the prior study convincingly demonstrates the
dynamic nature of confinement of African-American youth even

as it is extended into adulthood.

Afrocentric Perspective

The Afrocentric perspective has been applied to many
social issues. It is based on a distinction between African
and European worldviews and can be traced to traditional

African cultures that predated the influence of European

10

 

 
 

 

colonization and imperialism (Scheile, 1997). These African
cultures emphasized collective identity over individualism;
emotional and spiritual connection over material
objectification; equal distribution of resources over
concentration of resources among those perceived to have
contributed most; and reciprocal interdependent
responsibility of government and individual over dichotomous
government and individual responsibility. The Afrocentric
perspective also emphasizes an inclusion of racial and
ethnic pride by highlighting the often overlooked
contributions of African cultures.

From an Afrocentric point of view, Brinson (1994)
considers several explanations for higher arrest and
confinement rates among African-Americans. Listed are
family structure, school performance, values, peer
relationships, media influences, racial features, and
personality factors. Brinson reasons that socio-economic
status, academic achievement, childhood patterns, and coping
styles are interrelated and serve as the most important
determinants of maladaptive behavior in African-American
youth. Although he presents no empirical data of his own,
he intersperses his arguments with relevant findings from
other investigations that support his points. While such an
approach may not meet current standards for scholarly
research, his discussion dispenses valuable nuggets of
knowledge, that warrant further examination. Included are

the assertions that approximately two-thirds of African-

11

American children live in poverty, education level of mother
and length of father presence are the best predictors of
academic achievement among Black children; seven to nine
year-old offenders are more likely to be non—White and
living with a single mother; and those youth who accept the
cultural goals of society but are excluded from the means to
achieve them are more likely to turn to crime. The
attribution of higher confinement rates to these factors
raises other empirical questions, but also emphasizes the
potential role of the social ecology of the offender in the
development of individual behaviors, and system

dispositions.

Special Circumstances of African-American YOuth

Other bodies of research indicate that African-American
youth encounter factors in life that either are not
contacted by European-American youth, or which do not hold
the same level of personal impact. Two such factors are

racism and exposure to interpersonal violence.

Racism

It may be argued that racism is at the root of any
discrepancies in the rates of social problems that affect
African-Americans and European-Americans. Further, as an

ideology, racism operates at the meta-level of social

12

systems and pervades the American social ecology (Goldberg &
Hodes, 1992). Seen from this perspective, the topic of
racism is far too broad to address within the scope of the
proposed study, but it is instructive to deal with the forms
of impact it may exert on the immediate environment of the
youth, such as the family functions of cohesion and control.
Goldberg and Hodes (1992) examined families of Black
substance-abusing youth. With a recognition of the
potential for oppression in modern society, they sought
particular developmentally significant issues for minority
families who are negotiating the transition of adolescent
children toward autonomy. Of note were two opposing, and
potentially problematic patterns that have been elsewhere
related to delinquency. Encounters with racism could
strengthen the external boundary of the family, thereby
propelling parents and adolescents toward each other and
increasing levels of enmeshment. The mechanism cited in
dysfunctional examples of this process is parental “over-
protectiveness”, which embodies aspects of family cohesion
and parental control. Alternatively, racism could drive the
adolescent farther from the parents in pursuit of a break
from family patterns, thereby increasing levels of
disengagement. Again, family cohesion cycles beyond a
functional level, and the balancing effects of parental
control are overcome as the adolescent draws increased
personal power. The authors conclude that racism can be

considered in terms of the balance between the centripetal

l3

 

TI—

 

 

 

and centrifugal forces in family relationships that are

central to individual development.

Interpersonal Violence

Encounters with violence are an inescapable part of the
social landscape for many African-American youth, especially
males. Violence touches these young people as victims and
perpetrators. African-American youth are three to five
times more likely than European-Americans to be murder
victims; African-American teenagers commit about 80% of the
violent crimes suffered by their peers, and 90% of the time
the offenders and victims are males (King, 1997).

From an Afrocentric perspective, King (1997) identifies
the history of chattel slavery, institutional racism, and
poverty as factors contributing to this condition. He
observed that one in three Africans died on the march to the
coast and another one third died during the sea voyage in
the enslavement period. Lynching survived abolition, as is
well-documented in accounts of such public displays of
violence against African-American males. Police brutality
and capital punishment are included as examples of official
violence. Racial discrimination and poverty are perpetuated
by limited involvement of African-American youth in the
opportunity structures of American life. King (1997, p. 89)
states, “African-American boys...know that if they cannot

dribble a basketball, hit a baseball, or sack a quarterback,

l4

this country has little use for them...” He also indicts
the popular ‘warrior mentality’, and the related war
paradigm, as a pervasive metaphor in American life which
undermines a culturally and socially appropriate value
system. King concludes with a linkage of these ecological
factors to the personal factors of low self-worth, lack of
purpose, lack of social competencies for a hostile
environment, lack of connectedness in the African-American
community, and lack of a culturally specific and relevant
world-view.

Violence among African-American youth has also been
described as a socio-cultural phenomenon by Cousins (1997).
Through qualitative research, he locates violence within the
contexts of life in a poor, black, urban high school and
community. These contexts are heavily shaped by culture,
which provides the shared meanings of events and
interactions. He argues that public policy, as reflected in
several specific pieces of legislation enacted since the
late 1960's deals with the violence of African-American
youth as somehow separate from the violence that is woven
into the fabric of American life. This separate treatment,
he further argues, results in attributions of aberrance
rather than reflection of poverty and racial discrimination
in contact with mainstream culture.

Afrocentric observers emphasize the important role of
culture in shaping shared beliefs, personal experiences, and

the perceptions that direct social power. As is made

15

apparent in the next chapter, these cultural forces have
long been at work in the juvenile justice arena. A careful
review of historical factors suggests that prevailing
prejudices about certain groups of people, personal
responses to restricted social resources, and the extension
of social control into the lives of individuals and families
may have changed form over the past two hundred years, but

little has changed in their essential functions.

16

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2

major Developments in Delinquency Practice,
Policy, and Theory

The evolution of confinement as the method of choice
for dealing with juvenile crime provides a useful backdrop
for an investigation of disproportionate minority
confinement. The choice to incarcerate any children
facilitates the choice to incarcerate selected groups of
children at inequitable rates. The problem of
disproportionate minority confinement, thus, may be
understood as a current manifestation of long-standing
social forces.

In relation to juvenile crime, a caring society
addresses what are often perceived to be the opposing needs
for social control and social treatment. The value of
safety for society is juxtaposed with the value of humane
treatment and socialization of the youthful offender.
Rather than view these needs as adversarial forces in a
dialectical process, however, in the opinion of the author,
it may be more useful to recognize their complementary
value, and to organize them in the structure of a double
helix (Figure 1). Such a diagram represents an attempt to
depict the connection between these needs in a way that
realistically matches the experience of history. Although
proponents of social control are often at odds with those

who favor social treatment, the forces themselves appear to

17

be systemically linked. Historical evidence, as presented
in the remainder of this chapter, reflects ongoing attempts
to balance these social obligations, and may be interpreted
to show that each significant development of the juvenile
justice system has incorporated them in a pattern of linkage

rather than conflict. This evidence is considered below.

The ‘Invention’ of Juvenile Delinquency

Although concern for children and the experience of
juvenile crime did not begin out of the darkness in the
early nineteenth century, prior to that time there was no
systematic separation of juveniles from other criminals in
the United States (Montgomery, 1909; Bruno, 1957).
“Delinquency” was a term that was applied to all those in
the “dangerous classes” who committed crimes, regardless of
their age.

It has been suggested that specialized application of
the term to juvenile offenders began to extend governmental
control over a range of youthful activity that had
previously been ignored or dealt with informally (Platt,
1977). With the rise of industrialization, families were
drawn to urban centers to secure employment. In conjunction
with this concentration of population, and parents working
away from the home, came the advent of public education.
These developments created opportunities for children to

become a greater social nuisance as they came together in

18

 

 

‘- r.-
Il'l‘ l

 

 

 

 

1910

1900

1850

1840

1830

1820

1810

 

Scrutiny of Institutions

Public Institutions

hveufiondDeliqlency

Social Treatment

Figure 1. Complimentary Structure of Social Control and Social Treatment

consolidated peer groups (Ferdinand, 1991). If children
committed crimes, they were initially dealt with by the
criminal justice system and sometimes incarcerated along
with adults, but such a practice did not allow effective
intervention with the numbers of troublesome youth whose
behavior fell short of felonious activity. Ferdinand (1991)
argues that a means of bolstering the authority of the
family and the school, in this context, was the construction
of a new social status known as the “juvenile”. He notes
that the family and school retained a primary responsibility
to socialize children, and the doctrine of parens patriae
was used to legitimate the intercession of the state in
cases where the primary means of control had failed.

A concern with the impact of juvenile crime caught the
attention of a group of people who have come to be known as
the “child-savers” (Pumphrey & Pumphrey,1961). Much of the
work of the child-savers was delineated by the view of the
child as a helpless victim of the excesses and inequities of
society, but a dangerous victim nonetheless (Bruno, 1957).
If unchecked, this victim could wreak havoc. Within these
positions, it is possible to identify the earliest
expressions of the needs for social control and humane
treatment methods intended to change individual behaviors.
The seeds of connection between a punitive external control
perspective and a more benign treatment orientation were

sown at this early juncture and persist to the present day.

20

The Quest for Cause

Much effort during the nineteenth century was directed
toward identifying and outlining the causes of social
problems, in order to apply increasing social resources to
their redress. Crime was a troubling social problem, and
criminality became a focus for such investigation. Activity
of this nature was focused on construction of an explanation
for the emergence of the “criminal classes” (Pumphrey &
Pumphrey, 1961).

Among the earliest identified causes of delinquency
were the personal attributes of individual delinquents.
Disadvantaged children living in cities were regarded as
intellectual dwarfs and physical and moral wrecks (Platt,
1977). A theory of personal predisposition to crime was
popularized. The Chaplain of the New York House of Refuge
wrote that “...young criminals, now numbered by the
thousands...have fallen into crime, not through the want, as
we have seen, of excellent homes, but through peculiar
weakness or corrupting influences. Poor blood, low moral
culture, the pinch of poverty, the habit of indulgence, pre-
dispose this class to early crime” (Pierce, 1869, p. 25).
Such an explanation smacks of stereotyping and “blaming the
victim” from a more modern perspective.

Later, the urban poor family was also indicted as a
cause of delinquency. In the first circular of the

Children's Aid Society published in 1853, Charles Loring

21

Brace noted that the Society was to become a means of
dealing with the “...increasing crime and poverty of the
destitute classes of New York”. He continued to say that
the poor and immigrant children “...were unable to share in
what we should call a home.” (Pumphrey & Pumphrey,196l, p.
123). Such remarks illustrate a view that breakdown of the
family was a primary factor in the production of juvenile
delinquents. Also inherent in such a perspective, is the
belief that immigrant and poor families somehow abdicated
their responsibility to provide moral training and
behavioral control for their children. These attitudes
toward the recognized underclass echo in more recent
characterizations of low-income, urban, African-American
families who replaced immigrants in the social strata one
hundred years later.

Conditions in industrialized cities were eventually
identified as a set of explanations for juvenile crime as
well. Cities were generally regarded as crowded and
unpleasant places for all but the very rich. Segregation by
ethnic group, religion, and social class were escalating
throughout the mid-nineteenth century (Leiby, 1978). The
city was seen by many as the breeding ground of criminal
activity. Julia Lathrop wrote that “....we take the
sturdiest of European peasantry and at once destroy in a
large measure its power to rear to decent livelihood that
first generation of offspring upon our soil” (Platt, 1977,

p. 92).

22

By the late nineteenth century, concerns about the
urban environment and the culpability of families and
individuals were drawn together in a cohesive explanation.
The prevailing epistemology was one of “science”, wherein
everything was explained, no longer through religious
imagery, but through secular, empirical, and rational
constructions (Platt, 1977; Leiby, 1978). One example of
such science was the theory of atavism which proposed that
due to a process of genetic recombination, disposition
toward crime or “lunacy” or other disorders, was revealed in
every feature of the person. The body, the mind, and the
behavior of the delinquent were considered to be criminal in
nature (Platt, 1977). This supported an emerging belief in
a criminal class that could be identified, segregated, and
controlled. Dugdale’s publication, in 1887, of The Jukes, a
multigenerational study of one family’s depravity, did much
to advance this notion (Platt,1977). A more enlightened
perspective may recognize these explanations as
pseudoscientific, class biased, and a basis for
discriminatory policy, but at the time they offered a
desirable opportunity for action.

In these explanations, it is possible to trace the
tracks that lead to more modern justifications for intrusive
interventions in the individual and family lives of youthful
offenders. Much of the content that was historically
applied to the urban ethnic poor, has found its way into

present day applications centered on the inner-city African-

23

American youth and family.

Imperatives for Intervention

As suggested above, early nineteenth century reform
efforts were grounded in moral and religious imperatives.
The whole notion of child-saving embodied a moral obligation
to protect and provide for the most obviously dependent of
society’s members. Mirroring American concerns from across
the Atlantic, a reformer noted that:

“The enormity and amount of juvenile depravity

is a subject which now most painfully engages the

public mind. These things have long been known

to the few: -- now they are made evident to the

many: and it is equally clear that if the evil is

not checked, it must increase. Now we see: --

therefore our sin remaineth if we strive not to
remove the evil” (Carpenter, 1851, p. 135).

During the waning days of the nineteenth century,
however, there was increased application, albeit
rudimentary, of scientific modes of inquiry. Along with
this more secular approach, came an expanded sense of public
responsibility. The term “social welfare” was coming into
usage as a replacement for the older term of “charities and
corrections” (Leiby 1978). The change in terminology
reflected a growing sense of the interdependence of people
in society, as well as an increased acceptance of the need

for government to shoulder responsibility for the welfare of

24

all its citizens.

Philanthropic voluntarism was yielding to the creation
of a new technology of social treatment, with various
specializations (Leiby, 1978). According to Leiby (1978),
the belief systems of Christianity, Liberalism, and
Mercantilism, were the driving forces of society which
contributed to an unprecedented economic development. The
perceived power of these forces, and the realization of
substantial wealth on a societal scale, have been linked to
the optimistic view of reformers that injustices and
inequities could be overturned. The establishment of the
Children’s Aid Society, the work of the Charity Organization
Societies, the beginning of the Settlement movement, and the
initiation of the Juvenile Court, each represent unique and
significant manifestations of the effort to improve social
functioning (Bruno, 1957; Sutton, 1988). The application of
material resources, and professionalization and
specialization of social welfare service delivery systems,
contributed to evolution of large public systems devoted to
resolution of particular social problems, including juvenile

delinquency.

Changing the Child

From 1815 to 1845, there was a burst of support for
specialized institutions as the method of choice for

treating the various individual disorders which impacted

25

society (Leiby, 1978). An institution offered an attractive
means of meeting the need for social control by isolating
identified deviants, while providing specialized
intervention with individuals, and developing increased
knowledge about the particular disorder through focused
study (Leiby, 1978). There was a concurrent move toward
more humane practices evidenced by the substitution of hard
labor for corporal punishment in prisons, the use of
educational rather than penal models for children, and the
emerging belief that mental illness was due to physiological
problems with the brain rather than possession by evil.

Institutions for changing children were referred to
initially as Houses of Refuge and later as reformatories,
which reflects the primary purpose of reforming the child’s
character. An activist outlined operational principles for
reformatories as follows:

[There must be] a strong faith in the immortality
of the human soul, the universal and parental
government of God, and the equal value in His sight
of each of these poor perishing creatures with the
most exalted of our race. Love must be the ruling
sentiment of all who attempt to influence and guide
these children. This love must be wise as well as
kind... The reformatory must be a well-managed
system, guided by undeviating order and regularity
in the whole school, to which it will be evident
that the master is bound as well as the scholars,
and for which he will take opportunities of showing
them are as necessary for their comfort and well—
being as for his. Industrial training should be a
part of the school. Personal cleanliness is
important...no punishments of a degrading or
revengeful nature will ever be employed.(Carpenter,
1851, p. 121).

26

To this she added that moral training and intellectual
growth should also be included. These basic principles laid
down in 1851, expressed with less religious language, have
served to characterize the self descriptions of most child-
caring institutions for the next century and a half.

In 1869, the chaplain of the New York House of Refuge,
which was one of the earliest child-caring institutions,
described the aims of the institution as follows:

The object of a reformatory is not to send forth

a class of highly educated and polished young

persons, but to raise up out of the dust, hundreds

now festering in sinful homes and vicious societies:

to hold them near the truth until their minds shall

be impressed with it: to teach them the use of the

personal implements with which, in most cases in the

humblest walks of life, they will secure an honest
living: and then give them a fair start, with hard

labor and an honest purpose, to create for themselves
a comfortable home.(Pierce, 1869, p. 156).

Two common forms of institutions were the congregate
and the cottage plans. The congregate model was used in the
establishment of the New York House of Refuge in 1825, and
its counterpart in Boston in 1826. The congregate system
favored a facility located close to an urban center, with
boys housed in large units that were relatively impersonal
and highly structured. It was considered an advantage to
remain in the urban environment and utilize the industrial
resources of the city.

As the century progressed, however, the cottage plan

emerged as a favored form for institutions. The cottage

27

plan was well publicized and succinctly described by
juvenile corrections experts. Enoch Wines enunciated the
formula that children under the age of fourteen, lacking
appropriate guardianship, should come into the care Of the
state, whereupon they would be placed for an indeterminate
period, in institutions with facilities of about forty boys
each, located in the country away from the evils of the
city, which would be modeled after the life of an honest
family (Platt, 1977).

By the very early twentieth century, the methodology of
institutional treatment of juvenile delinquency was
clarified and refined, and enjoyed international
application. Basic principles of this methodology included
forfeiture of parental rights when parents demonstrated
incompetence (presumably by virtue of the child‘s arrest);
treatment of offenders as juveniles rather than as adults
until age eighteen; indefinite sentencing to ensure an
adequate period for reformation; use of probation during the
post release period; use of the institution as a necessary,
but temporary intervention; provision of high quality
industrial training to facilitate employment after release;
individualized assessment of the character of the inmates as
the basis for grouping in cottage units; and sparing use of
corporal punishment (Russell & Rigby, 1906).

The period of 1910 to 1920, however, introduced
scrutiny of the practice of institutionalization. Several

articles appeared in “The Survey”, a favorite magazine of

28

social welfare reformers at the time, criticizing operations
of the child care institutions and the juvenile court
(Coffeen, 1910; Ellwood, 1910; Lattimore, 1910; Lane, 1915;
Addition & Deardorff, 1919). Major objections had to do
with the juvenile court practice that brought delinquent and
dependent children into the same proceedings, and the level
of physical care provided to children in the institutions.

A method of changing deviant children that offered an
alternative to institutionalization was the controversial
practice of “placing out”, as championed by C.L. Brace and
the Children’s Aid Society. Under this program, urban waifs
were to be saved from the evils of eastern cities by sending
them to the wide open spaces of the western states like
Minnesota and Michigan. Thousands of children were “placed
out” of the old cities and indentured on farms over a span
of several years (Pumphrey & Pumphrey, 1961). It became
known, through studies such as that of Hastings H. Hart in
1884, that a great number of children were scattered over
several states and transferred from family to family and
“...became lost to the knowledge of the state...” which
placed them out (Pumphrey & Pumphrey, 1961). The conceptual
basis of placing out was that a child would do better in a
family environment, with the benefit of hard work and

contribution, than in an institution.

29

Creation of the Juvenile Court

The establishment of the first Juvenile Courts in
Illinois and Colorado in 1899, significantly expanded the
reach of government into the private lives of children and
families. It has been noted that the “juvenile justice
system”, prior to the genesis of the Juvenile Court was a
very diverse and loose collection of private and public
institutions and community programs that were served by the
civil court (Ferdinand, 1991). The authority of the court,
while respected in the field, was informal, and provided
very little control over the staffing, budgets, practice, or
objectives of the programs it fed (Ferdinand, 1991).

The creation of the Juvenile Court represents a
concentration of authority with the aim of matching children
and appropriate interventions (Sutton, 1988). With such a
mission, the Juvenile Court took on responsibility for all
youthful offenders, and established itself as the central
decision-making entity for all matters pertaining to the
disposition of juvenile delinquents, including removal from

the family home.

MOdern Practice Approaches

Although the fundamental form of cottage plan
institutions has been maintained throughout the twentieth

century, adjunctive components and alternative approaches

30

~f ‘r...

have been applied (Young, Dore, & Pappenfort, 1986). These
include the addition of highly structured group homes in
community settings, and the integration of family
involvement and family therapy models in institutional
milieus, as well as intensive in-home services, multi—
systemic treatment, and use of a correctional model.

This brief discussion of modern practice approaches is
presented to highlight the additions and alternatives to
confinement that have been attempted in recent years. It is
offered to counter the impression that out-of—home placement
is the only available alternative for intervention in
juvenile delinquency.

Residential care, although not significantly changed in
basic structure, exhibits notable shifts along dimensions of
agency size and auspices, and complexity of services, from
the mid-1960’s into the early 1980’s (Young, Dore, &
Pappenfort, 1986). A trend toward smaller private agencies
with greater functional complexity in service of delinquent
youth has been observed. Modern delinquency treatment
practices have continued to include relatively traditional
institutional programs which incorporate greater emphasis on
group treatment modalities and an “aftercare” component
which attempts to follow youth back into their home
communities.

During the late 1970’s and into the early 1990’s,
increasing application of ecological principles in the

formulation of innovative treatment approaches occurred.

31

The community based movement of the 1970’s brought the
proliferation of smaller group homes established in
neighborhoods (Young, Dore, & Pappenfort 1986). The 1980’s
and 1990’s were characterized by rapid development of family
focused programming based on systems theory concepts and
family therapy approaches. In more recent years, however,
there has been a counteracting influence that leads to
implementation of correctional rather than treatment models.

These practice approaches will be explicated below.

Family Involvement

Due to clinical experience and rudimentary program
evaluation efforts, it was widely accepted in the
residential care field in the 1970’s that treatment outcomes
for delinquent youth could be improved with greater
attention to family interactions and community based
interventions (Coughlin, et al., 1982). The treatment
literature espoused the advantages of “family involvement”
in residential treatment programs (Colon, 1981; Krona, 1980;
Whittaker, 1979). Such efforts included family education
regarding the systemic nature of delinquent behaviors,
attempts to raise the frequency and quality of family
functioning , and experiments with inclusion of the family
alternatively as part of the treatment team, or as the
primary client. In practice, such efforts yielded numerous

and costly administrative issues, but raised consciousness

32

of family interactions and paved the way for incorporation
of family therapy models into the residential milieu. This
process of integration of family and existing residential
models has been described as a developmental process which
encompassed grand scale shifts in attitudes, resources, and
agency policies (McConkey-Radetzki, 1986). In order to
smooth this transition, some agencies incorporated
sophisticated computerized clinical information systems and
complimentary staff development programs (Mooradian &

Grasso, 1993).

Family Therapy

While outcome studies of family therapy approaches with
delinquents are generally confounded by the conduct of
family therapy along with other treatment components in
residential settings, they are also subject to some notable
conceptual and methodological difficulties. In a review of
general family therapy research, Bednar, Burlingame, and
Masters (1988) noted the conclusion that the family
behavioral therapies are found to be as effective as other
psychotherapies, but added their observation that rigorous
research was limited by a lack of semantic and measurement
precision.

Shadish, Montgomery, Wilson, Bright, and Okumabua
(1993), conducted a meta-analysis of family therapy outcome

studies published from 1963 to 1988, and found an effect

33

size of .53 (n = 16) for conduct disorder and delinquency
treatment. Chamberlain and Rosicky (1995), conducted a
subsequent meta-analysis of studies from 1988 to 1994 that
specifically addressed family therapy for conduct disorder
and delinquency. By using a selection strategy that
combined research rigor and therapy specification, they were
able to analyze studies that escaped the criticism of
earlier reviewers, and found that family therapy
significantly improved outcomes as compared to individual or
group treatment alone. They further noted that family
therapy significantly increased the likelihood that youth
would either remain with, or return to, their own family
after confinement. Nelson (1990) found that family focused
programs were successful at preventing out-of—home placement
for status offenders and other delinquents at the
significantly high rates of 67% to 100%, and 50% to 90%,

respectively.

Intensive In-Home Services

Intensive in-home family service programs are heavily
connected to the family preservation movement that grew out
of the foster care arena (Woods 1988). These programs seek
to prevent out-of—home placement of youth, by committing
relatively high levels of resources to the family of the
youth for strictly limited periods (Woods, 1988). Such

programs are based on an amalgamation of theories including

34

 

crisis intervention, family systems, social learning, and
human ecology (Barth, 1989).

The most widely applied model of intensive in-home
family treatment is the Homebuilders program (Kinney,
Haapala, Booth, & Leavitt, 1989). Home-builders workers are
available to their client families at any time during the
four to six weeks of treatment. They work with two to four
families at any given time. Limited goals are established
with the family and evaluated weekly. Although originally
intended to serve child welfare cases, the Homebuilders
model gained appeal due to claims of high success rates in
preventing out-of-home placement, and by emphasizing cost
savings. In Michigan, the model was instituted as the
Families First program for child welfare cases, and was
eventually expanded to serve delinquency cases (OCYS, 1988).
Although internal program evaluation efforts claimed
extremely high rates of success, defined as no out-of—home
placement at three months after intervention, no independent
studies of effectiveness have been located.

Another common intervention is Intensive Supervision or
In-Home Detention. These interventions seek to provide
external control over the delinquent without physical
confinement (Barton & Butts 1990). Control measures range
from unpredictable contact with a supervision worker through
electronic tethering. In a study designed to test the
efficacy of these programs as an alternative to state

wardship (which is a reasonable proxy for placement in

35

traditional programs), Barton and Butts (1990) followed, for
two years, a primarily inner-city African-American sample of
500 youth who were randomly assigned to one of three
experimental intensive supervision programs, and a control
group of state wards. Their findings indicate that the
intensive supervision programs successfully graduated 46% of
assigned youth. The remainder were terminated due to a lack
of behavioral progress. These graduates were compared to
the control group. The mean number of charges filed against
program youth was 2.63, while it was only 1.31 for the
control group. The investigators, however, reasoned that
the program youth were “at large” for longer periods of time
(18.3 months for program youth and only 10.68 months for
control youth), and so had a longer period of exposure for
recidivism. In an attempt to equalize this discrepancy,
they constructed an index to produce a “mean number of
weighted criminal charges” that allowed them to compare
program youth more favorably to control youth. This
weighted average was 3.69 versus 3.58 for the groups
respectively, and the difference was not significant.
Although the authors conclude that intensive supervision is
a viable alternative to traditional wardship, their research
appears to align data with a preferred conclusion, and does

not adequately support the assertion.

36

Multi-Systemic Treatment

Multi-Systemic treatment (MST) of serious and violent
offenders is based on the assumption that adolescent
behavior is embedded in complex and interconnected systems
involving individual, peer, family, school, and community
levels (Henggeler, 1991). Treatment intervention is
directed at each of these levels, as well as their
interfaces. MST utilizes case management, educational
interventions, family therapy, and supportive interventions
known as “nurturing” or “mentoring”.

Sutphen, Thyer, and Kurtz (1995) implemented the model
with 80 “high risk” juvenile offenders and found significant
improvements in family relationships, life skills, school
performance, peer relationships, and delinquent behavior.
Bourduin (1995) tested the model for effectiveness in
comparison with individual treatment. With a sample of 176
juvenile offenders identified as being at high risk for
committing additional serious crimes, he found MST to be
more effective in improving key family correlates of
antisocial behavior and in ameliorating adjustment problems
in individual youth. He also compared four year re-arrest
rates and found MST to be more effective in preventing
future criminal behavior in comparison to individual
treatment.

Henggler, Melton, and Smith, (1992) cast MST as a form

of family preservation, and conducted a rigorous comparison

37

of MST and out-of—home delinquency placement. This study
used a sample of 84 serious offenders who were randomly
assigned to each of the treatment conditions. A
pretest/posttest format was used to compare the youth on
several variables, including family relationships, peer
relationships, psychiatric symptomatology, social
competence, and self-reported delinquency. The
investigators found no significant differences among the
demographic and psychosocial variables, but a check of
archival records one year later indicated that the MST youth
showed significantly fewer arrests as well as self-reported
offenses. Curiously, they also reported that the MST youth
were confined an average of ten fewer weeks than those in
the Youth Services group. This may lead a reader to
question the efficacy of MST as a family preservation
intervention, since the goal is to totally prevent
confinement. Also raised by this study are questions
regarding the specific effects of MST on the other variables
that may represent its goals. Nonetheless, it appears that
MST functions as an ecological intervention and is
reasonably effective when compared to traditional out-of-
home placement. Such knowledge also supports the value of
an ecological approach to intervention with serious

delinquents.

38

Correctional Model

Howell (1998) points out that juvenile justice
approaches appear to be completing a cycle. The first major
reform effort separated juveniles from adult offenders and
gave rise to the specialized institution; the second phase
began with formation of the juvenile court and provided
legal basis for an extensive and more cohesive system; the
third began in the mid-twentieth century with a focus on
prevention and diversion from traditional placements; a
fourth era seems to be underway wherein there is a call for
once again adjudicating youth as adults. There are numerous
and vocal proponents of a “get tough” approach that opposes
traditional protection and treatment for delinquent youth
(Howell 1998).

In concert with a conservative political climate and
increased public fear of violent youth, has come what may be
termed the correctional model for intervention in juvenile
delinquency. It carries an emphasis on community protection
rather than individual rehabilitation. Proponents of the
correctional model favor lowered age limits for trial with
adult status, specific sentences for identified felonies,
increased discretionary powers of county prosecutors, and
trading treatment dollars for increasingly secure
facilities. The State of Michigan, for example, has begun
implementation of a $37.6 million project involving removal

of existing treatment cottage facilities and replacement

39

with high security buildings and perimeter reinforcements at
the large W.J. Maxey Boys’ Training School (Oppat, 1998).
This facility has been run as an “open” group-oriented
treatment “campus” for most of Michigan’s serious juvenile
offenders since the late 1960’s. It was supplemented with
the maximum security Green Oak Center, which serviced
approximately one fourth the population of the open program.
With this recent development, it appears that the
differences in structure and objective between the two

facilities are rapidly dissolving.

Mbdern Policy Issues

The doctrine of parens patriae, which serves as the
legal cornerstone of Juvenile Court proceedings, has been
challenged by reformers in the 1990's (Ferdinand, 1991). As
the foundation for a system that allows the state to act in
place of parents, the doctrine has been interpreted as an
“either/or” principle, wherein children are considered to be
either the responsibility of the parents, or that of the
state (Weiss, 1990). Responsibility for children has been
traditionally transferred from parents to government only
when families fail to provide adequate control. Such a
condition requires that parents be found incompetent in
order for the child to be processed and placed into
treatment. Such a system creates adversity between the

family and the treatment providers and tends to favor out-

40

 

of—home placement. It has been suggested that an
alternative, based on joint and interdependent
responsibility of the family, community, and state might
prove to be more effective. Support for this alternative is
provided in the separate reports of five distinct
commissions which studied the juvenile justice system
(Weiss, 1990). Proponents of such an approach characterize
it as family-centered as opposed to child-centered or
bureaucracy-centered. This collaborative approach is
gaining strength and is favored by some Juvenile Court
judges, but is far from being fully implemented (Hatchett,
1998). Parental rights continue to be compromised, and huge
numbers of juveniles are placed out of their family homes
each year (Weiss, 1990).

Status as a juvenile, and acceptance of the ideal that
youthful offenders have a “right to treatment”, have
produced several compromises to the due process protections
that would otherwise be afforded those subjected to
confinement. Reliance on recommendations of caseworkers in
court proceedings, indeterminate sentencing, broad
discretionary powers of staff in detention and treatment
facilities, and informal assessments all may have eroded the
protections available to juveniles. While the stated
motivations have always been to act in the best interest of
the child, a paternalistic discretionary system allows
greater likelihood of arbitrary dispositions.

Paradoxically, an interest in saving children may actually

41

subject them to greater intrusions on personal freedom than
are experienced by adult offenders.

Some observers have raised concerns with forms of
confinement in other venues such as the use of private
psychiatric hospitals for delinquent behaviors (Eamon,
1994). Such use may further circumvent the requirements for
due process established for juveniles processed through
normal juvenile justice channels. Extending this area of
concern, Johnson (1996) suggests that even broader forms of
social control exist for delinquents and their families.
Under the concept of “transcarceration”, he includes the use
of educational systems and welfare systems as modes of
social control. While it may be argued that such an
extension of the concept of government intrusion (and the
need for due process protection) may be excessive, Johnson’s
notion effectively raises consciousness of additional means
of social control, particularly as they apply to low—income
African-Americans.

One alternative to the “right to treatment” doctrine is
application of a “just desserts” model. This approach
asserts that it is no longer appropriate to consider all
juveniles as dependent and in need of the protection of the
state (Ashford, 1988). It favors more formalized decision-
making about placement based on community risk, lowered age
limits for trial with adult status, increased discretion for
prosecutors, and reduced numbers of offenders placed in

juvenile treatment facilities.

42

Emergent Theories of Delinquency

The following theories outline current constructions of
the factors that are thought to contribute to delinquent

behavior, and presumably lead to subsequent confinements.

Strain Theory

Strain theory holds that delinquency flows from
frustration due to interference with goal-directed behavior
and an incongruence of values and opportunity. It is
primarily sociological in orientation and focuses on the
impact of individual and community interaction. Applied to
the particular experience of many African-American youth,
this theory may be helpful in locating the impact of
oppressive opportunity structures, peer influences, and
limited availability of adult males.

Classic strain theory has been presented in the work of
Merton (1938), Cohen (1955), and Cloward and Ohlin (1960).
These explanations are characterized by a focus on the
inability of adolescents to attain long-range economic or
status goals through socially legitimated processes. The
image of delinquency that emerges from this branch of theory
is one of the urban youth from a disenfranchised ethnic or
racial group, who is systematically denied opportunities for
advancement due to discriminatory practices and capitalistic

motivations.

43

Newer versions of strain theory (Elliot & Voss, 1974;
Greenberg, 1977; Empey, 1985) replace the blockage of long-
range goals with a focus on more immediate social goals such
as popularity with peers, academic success, athletic
achievement, and developing reasonable relationships with
significant adults. Success in achieving these types of
goals may vary on a daily basis, so greater variability in
delinquent behavior is anticipated.

A further updated version of strain theory includes the
role of blockage from avoidance of painful or aversive
events (Agnew, 1985). The rationale in this case states
that inability to employ legitimated paths of avoidance may

lead to the selection of illegal escape attempts.

Sub-Cultural Deviance Theory

According to this branch of theory, it is association
with negative peers that is central to the development of
delinquent behavior. The peer group is defined as a
subculture. A tenet in original formulations of this theory
is that association with delinquent others leads to
acceptance of delinquent values, which in turn leads to
delinquent behavior (Agnew, 1992). Working from a
recognition of mechanisms other than the infusion of
delinquent values, Briar and Piliavin (1965) assert that
youth may commit delinquent acts in an effort to prove their

courage or remain loyal to peers. Similarly, Short and

44

Strodbeck (1963) look to the significance of maintaining or
enhancing status within the peer group. If peer group norms
support antisocial behavior, then those norms will be
reinforced, in opposition to the values of larger social
systems, through personal interactions within the
subculture. Johnson, Marcos, and Bohr (1987) explained
delinquent behavior, in the form of drug use, through the
situational pressures applied by peers.

Group membership, belonging, and individual identity
emerge as factors to be considered in investigation of
delinquent behavior and multiple confinements. Once a youth
is labeled “delinquent” and coercively grouped with other
“delinquents”, existing problems with personal associations
and identity may be exacerbated. Such a process holds
implications for youth caught in a cycle of multiple

confinements.

Rational Choice Theory

Rational Choice Theory rests upon the idea that
offenders seek personal benefit or gain through delinquent
behavior. Cornish and Clarke (1986) point out that the
delinquent makes choices about behavior, and decides to
engage in activities that provide some form of economic or
psychic reward. This reward may be material or mental.
They characterize this process as a rational one, but

acknowledge that it is limited by the situation and

45

predisposition of the individual in question.

The desire to obtain personal rewards in a context that
disallows approved approaches may, thus, explain delinquency
and subsequent confinement. Money or excitement may be the
desired outcomes of delinquent behavior, and the delinquent
youth is one who deliberately decides to obtain them through
illegal means. Although a greater emphasis is placed on
personal decision-making, similar to Strain Theory, Rational
Choice Theory implicates opportunity structures in the

production and maintenance of delinquent behavior.

Social Control Theory

Social Control Theory holds that adolescents who
function without the benefit of effective structure and
accountability measures engage in delinquent activities.
This branch of theory may be related to the development of
impulse control or internalization of prosocial values (Nye
1958). In this regard, authors have focused on the
complementary roles of attachment or cohesion and discipline
functions within families. Nye (1958) dealt with the
contribution of direct controls which he viewed as the
immediate application or threat of punishments and rewards
to gain compliance with social norms. Nye also recognized
that the impact of direct controls would be limited outside
the physical proximity of parents, and raised the importance

of the psychological presence of the parent as a deterrent

46

to antisocial behavior. Wells and Rankin (1988) were
influential in defining components of direct controls,
including specification of acceptable behaviors, monitoring
of youthful activity, and application of discipline.

Bahr (1979) recognized the utility of the concept of
attachment between parent and child as an explanatory
mechanism for adolescent motivation to conform. Research
has supported the idea that parental discipline is more
effective in reducing adolescent noncompliance within the
context of high parent-child attachment (Wells & Rankin,
1988). Eron, Walder, and Lefkowitz (1971) found that
punishment of boys who were not strongly attached to their
parents seemed to instigate aggressive behaviors.

Social Control Theory centers on the role of parental
behaviors and family interaction in the production and
maintenance of delinquent behavior. These assertions
overlap with conclusions drawn from the literature on family
functioning, and provide a useful basis for construction of
the models investigated in this study.

These four theories of delinquency emphasize various
subsystems of the youth’s social ecology. Together, they
cover a spectrum of possible factors that are hypothesized
to contribute to delinquent behavior. The next chapter
reviews empirical knowledge about the links between these

theoretical factors and delinquency.

47

Chapter 3

Research on Ecological Factors Related to Delinquency

Due to the ecological orientation of this study, two
additional areas of the literature must be considered to
locate the proposed study in the context of existing
knowledge. They include the relationship of stress and
coping to delinquency, and the relationship of family

functioning to delinquency.

The Relationship of Stress and Coping to Delinquency

The type, duration, and intensity of stress, along with
the youth’s chosen means of coping, have been identified as
factors that are related to delinquent behavior (McCubbin,
Kapp, & Thompson, 1993; Stiffman, Dore, & Cunningham, 1996;
Spaccarelli, 1997). A review of the stress and coping
literature provides a basis for inclusion of these variables
in the proposed analysis, and grounds construction of the

multiple regression models.

Conceptual Issues Regarding Stress and Coping

Stress and coping occupy deep space in the clinical
literature. Although several models of stress and coping
have been advanced, it is instructive to review one such

model that is representative of modern conceptualizations in

48

the field. Millgram (1989) points out that the term
“stress” has suffered from diverse application and ambiguous
definition. Two decades earlier, stress was commonly
defined as any change in one’s environment that elicits a
high degree of emotional tension which interferes with
normal patterns of response, and that requires behavioral
adaptation. Millgram offers an alternative that views
stress as an “imbalance between stimulus demand and response
supply” (1989, p 401). In this manner, stress is redefined
as an interactive process of the person within an
environment. Stressful events are referred to as
“stressors” and responses are seen as “stress mediating
variables”. Possible responses are stress reactions
(transient maladaptive behaviors), stress disorders
(crystallized clinical syndromes), and coping. Adaptive
attempts to mediate stress are referred to as coping, which
is based on cognitive appraisal of available intrapersonal
and social resources, and may take the form of problem-
focused or emotion-focused coping behaviors. Millgram
(1989) allows for “objective” and “subjective” appraisals of
the level of loss and personal responsibility associated
with a particular stressor, and acknowledges the important
role of personal meaning attached to an event.

A complement to Millgram’s conception of stress as an
imbalance comes from the sociological literature on mental
health. Pearlin (1989) suggested that the structural

arrangements within which individuals are embedded determine

49

the stressors they encounter, the stress mediators they are
able to mobilize, and their inner experiences of stress.
Such a conceptualization locates social statuses such as age
and gender as independent variables. From this perspective,
other investigators have concluded that stress is an
intervening variable between social status and psychological
functioning (Aneshensel, Rutter, & Lachenbruch, 1991). In
other words, social position organizes the sources of stress
encountered, and methods of coping available for a given
individual, and shapes psychological adaptation. This
framework offers advantages in its recognition of ecological
impacts, and has received support from other researchers
(Turner, Wheaton, & Lloyd, 1995). A further extension of
this branch is provided by Rosella (1993) who highlighted
the role of “disadvantaged social contexts” in placing low-
income black youth at risk for physical and mental health
difficulties including depression and delinquency. In this
manner, the combined effects of poverty and race may be seen
as a social status that exerts powerful impact on mental

health and other behavioral outcomes.

Research on Stress and Coping Related to Delinquency

Prior practice experience indicated that children of
divorce, violence, alcoholism, and incest were over-
represented in adult clinical populations, thus, researchers

in the 1970’s and 1980's focused on the development of

50

statistical risk models and found that stress factors such
as poverty, neighborhood violence, parental absence, and
employment instability increased the likelihood that
children would become delinquent, drug-addicted, or chronic
mental health cases (Butler, 1997).

Some researchers have focused specifically on
delinquency as an outcome variable and made attempts to
investigate the relative contributions of stress and coping
(McCubbin, Kapp, & Thompson, 1993; Stiffman, Dore, &
Cunningham, 1996; Spaccarelli, 1997). Two tracks of such
research are considered below. One attempts to establish a
linkage of stress to the production of delinquency, and the
other searches for the more specific relationships of
particular stressors and coping strategies to delinquent
behaviors.

Among the first category of studies is that of Vaux and
Ruggiero (1983). Their study was one of the earliest
published attempts to employ a retrospective design and
correlational approach to determine whether there was a
significant association between life stress and delinquency.
Regression analysis indicated that life changes added
significantly to age and socio-economic status in predicting
violence, theft, drug use, and property damage for their
sample. Due to their careful definition of delinquency and
adequate measurement of life stress, as well as the
inclusion of a non-institutional group of subjects, this

study advanced understanding of the relationship among the

51

variables. A more recent example of the same approach is
provided by Deutsch (1989). That study used a similar
design to determine that under-socialized youth had
experienced a greater number of stressful events during
their early lives than had their more socialized peers.

In an attempt to advance knowledge of stress and coping
in relation to delinquency, Hoffman and Su (1997)
investigated potential gender differences. They noted that
the general stress literature identified gender as a
mediator of stress and adjustment, but concluded that for
their delinquent sample, stressful events exert a similar
short-term impact on adolescent males and females. These
results may be interpreted to indicate that there is a
connection between stress and delinquency for both genders.

Studies of specific linkages include the following
examples. Utilizing an apparently all female sample, de
Anda, Javidi, Jefford, Komorowski, and Yanez (1991)
investigated potential differences in stressors faced and
coping employed among groups of pregnant and non-pregnant
substance abusing adolescents. Although high levels of
exposure to stress were reported by both groups, the only
significant difference in types of stressors was the greater
role of family members as sources of stress for the
substance abusing youth. It was also noted that the
pregnant sample indicated a higher use of “adaptive” coping
strategies such as cognitive control, affective release, and

relaxation, while the substance abusing group used

52

“maladaptive” strategies such as behavioral excess,
substance abuse, denial, and withdrawal.

Focusing on a group of confined delinquents with a
history of serious offenses, Burton, Foy, Bwanusi, and
Johnson (1994) found that juvenile delinquents are a high
risk group for exposure to trauma and the development of
stress-related symptomatology. The wording of this
conclusion is important in that there is a recognition of
the limitations of the retrospective design. These findings
also illustrate the limitations imposed on understanding the
effects of systemic feedback by the correlational approach.

A similar focus was taken by Steiner, Garcia, and
Matthews (1997), who utilized multiple forms of data
collection and a comparison group to investigate
relationships between Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and
delinquency. Thirty-two percent of the delinquent sample
met full diagnostic criteria for PTSD, and an additional
twenty percent met partial criteria. One half of the sample
indicated that the traumatic event was witnessing
interpersonal violence. The sample also experienced
significantly higher levels of distress, anxiety, and
depression, and lowered impulse control, and suppression of
aggression as compared to the non-clinical age and sex
matched comparison group.

Further establishing the connections between specific
stressors and adjustment for delinquents is the work of

Spaccarelli (1997). With a sample of violent delinquents

53

and a low-violence comparison group, it was determined that
greater exposure to serious physical abuse and domestic
violence involving weapons, and greater use of aggressive
control-seeking behaviors in response to stress, was evident
for the violent group.

In a longitudinal examination of the linkages between
particular stressors and the emergence of violent behavior
in adolescents, it was found that almost a third of the
variance in violent behaviors was predicted by a combination
of personal variables and environmental variables (Stiffman,
Dore, & Cunningham, 1996). This study carried the
advantages of a large inner-city sample with seventy percent
African-American participants, repeated interview data
collection techniques, multiple geographic sites, and an
eight year time span with four waves of analysis. Specific
stressors found to be significantly related to violent
behaviors include high community unemployment rates, history
of physical abuse, and having mentally ill family members.
In addition, an unspecified group of “stressful events” as
contrasted with “traumatic events” was the only
environmental variable to retain significant predictive
value across all four waves. While the article does not
provide adequate information regarding the operational
definition of “stressful events”, it does provide
confirmation for the role of stress in the production of
violent behaviors in adolescents.

In a study undertaken with youth in residential

54

treatment for delinquency, several specific findings
regarding the relationship of coping and adjustment in the
forms of program completion and post-placement success were
obtained (McCubbin, Kapp, & Thompson, 1993). Youth who
primarily utilized professional support, spiritual support,
and low activity coping strategies were significantly more
likely to successfully complete a group treatment program
with a family therapy component, and to do better upon
release to the community. By contrast, youth who used
ventilation (e.g. swearing and open expression of anger),
friendship support (e.g. being close with a friend or
boy/girlfriend), relaxation (e.g. daydreaming and listening
to music), and family problem-solving (e.g. talking with
family members and doing things with the family) had greater
difficulty completing treatment goals and adjusting to the
community after release from the program. These results are
carefully interpreted to mean that the fit between the youth
and the expectations of the program are critical to success,
rather than to say that certain coping strategies are
generally more successful for delinquent youth regardless of
their environment.

Taken together, this body of research provides support
for the conclusion that stressors and coping strategies are
significantly associated with the development and
maintenance of a broad range of delinquent behaviors.
Moreover, these relationships have been demonstrated for

males and females, and for African-American and European—

55

American youth. In this way, knowledge about the sources of
stress encountered and forms of coping employed by an
adolescent may provide a useful basis for understanding the
youth’s entry into the juvenile justice system and

subsequent out-of—home placement.

The Relationship of'Family Functioning to Delinquency

In the next two sections, the contributions of family

theory and research are considered.

Conceptual Issues Regarding Family Functioning and

Delinquency

Family theory has cultivated a rich field of literature
that overlaps family therapy, and incorporates conceptual
models of family interactions, and specific schemes for
measurement of family processes that propose complex
constructions verging on minor family theories. Conceptual
models include the Distance Regulation Model (Kantor & Lehr,
1990), and the Paradigmatic Model (Constantine, 1986).
Several scales have also been developed to measure internal
family functions and their relationship to clinical issues.
They include the Family Environment Scale (Moos & Moos,
1981), the Beavers-Timberlawn Family Evaluation Scale

(Beavers, 1985), the Family Assessment Device (Epstein &

56

Bishop, 1983), and the Family Adaptability and Cohesion
Evaluation Scales (Olson, Portner, & Bell, 1982). While
each of these tools has relative strengths, the last was
chosen to measure family functioning variables in this study
(see Chapter 4).

Linkages of family processes and delinquent behavior
are frequently studied. These studies usually issue from
either a family systems or criminology perspective. Two
primary processes of family functioning that notably assert
themselves in family and delinquency literature are family
cohesion and parental control. As is made evident through
thoughtful reading of the literature, various theorists and
researchers use mildly variant terms to refer to remarkably
similar constructs. Family cohesion, parental attachment,
parental bonding, affectionate bonding, and family emotional
support, may all be thought of as representing the
connectedness or attachment between the adolescent and his
or her parent(s) (Beavers, 1985; Epstein & Bishop, 1983;
Olson, Portner, Bell, 1982; Moos & Moos, 1981). Likewise,
terms such as parental leadership, parental monitoring,
discipline, family problem-solving, and family adaptability
share a common theme which may be seen as the family process
of parental control (Beavers, 1985; Epstein & Bishop, 1983;

Olson, Portner, Bell, 1982; Moos & Moos, 1981).

57

Research on the Relationship of Family Cohesion and

Parental Control to Delinquency

A paradigm shifting approach to family therapy was
designed during a clinically-oriented action-research effort
at the Wiltwyck School for Boys, which was a residential
center serving the delinquent population of New York City.
This approach, which has subsequently been applied to
diverse populations and presenting problems is known as
Structural Family Therapy (Minuchin, Montalvo, Guerney,
Rosman, & Schumer, 1967). This seminal research produced an
outline of the structure of low-income families of male
delinquents. With a focus on family relationship patterns,
the authors identified two extreme forms, which they termed
“enmeshment” (dysfunctional emotional closeness between
parent and child) and “disengagement” (dysfunctional
emotional distance between parent and child). The authors
noted that, in their sample, fathers or stable father-
figures were absent. This composition left child-rearing
completely to the mother. While the researchers were
careful not to attribute extreme forms of functioning to
single parent families in general, they noted that in the
families studied, the mothers were available for attachment
and nurturant needs, but anxious about having to provide
control functions. In enmeshed families, mothers would
experience their sons’ acting out as their own personal

failure, which evoked a complimentary response in the son.

58

The authors summarized this response as, “If I steal, I hurt
my mother”, rather than, “If I steal, I am a thief.” They
concluded that the child does not learn to take
responsibility for his actions, because there is no clear
demarcation between the behavior of mother and child. In
disengaged families, the mother would rarely inquire about
the day-to-day life of the child, thereby abdicating the
supervision role required of parents. The authors concluded
that neither extreme prepares the child for dealing with
stress and conflict, or for focusing attention on solutions
to problems external to the family. Implicit in this
approach are the family functions of cohesion and control,
which resurface in much of the research on delinquency.

Also indicated, is the primary role of stress and coping
factors in adolescent adjustment.

Towberman (1994) examined associations between selected
psychosocial variables and chronic delinquency, conducted a
factor analysis of the related variables, and regressed
these factors on chronic delinquency. Of all the derived
factors, including a diverse array of relevant matters such
as placement history, offense history, age at adjudication,
educational involvement, and prior victimization, only the
family cohesion factor was significantly associated with all
dimensions of chronic delinquency. This sample included a
small percentage of females, and was primarily African-
American.

In a study designed to uncover supports that mediate

59

the impact of stressors on adolescents, it was found that
emotional support from the family is a powerful mediator of
peer stressors in the development of adolescent depression
(Wenz-Gross, Siperstein, Untch, & Widaman, 1997). While
depression is not a form of delinquency, many clinicians
have noted a close connection of the two phenomena (Samuels
& Sikorsky, 1990).

In an attempt to incorporate ethnicity in an
examination of family processes and delinquency, Vazroni and
Flannery (1997), found that higher levels of family cohesion
were negatively correlated with delinquent behaviors. Their
sample included European-Americans and African-Americans in
early adolescence, and it was determined that family
variables explained more variance for the European-Americans
than for the African—Americans. They also found that
parental monitoring was negatively correlated with
delinquent behavior. This study lends support to the
proposition that both cohesion and control factors have
effect and significance in preventing the generation of
delinquent behaviors.

Len (1988) interviewed 63 incarcerated adults regarding
the connections they made between parental discipline and
their own criminal behavior. While 70% were incarcerated
for crimes against persons, and 81% reported suffering harsh
parental punishment or violent abuse, only 12 of the 63
verbalized a connection. The author points out that the

criminal tradition of “doing your own time” may involve a

60

 

form of rugged individualism which mitigates against openly
admitting that anyone else had responsibility for the
decision to commit crimes. Another psychological
explanation offered is the expectation that the child is
supposed to love his or her parents even though the parents
beat the child (Len, 1988). While the perception of inmates
is certainly valuable in understanding the ways in which
they may process their own life events, the high level of
association between parental disciplinary practices and
their children’s commission of violent crimes in this sample
cannot be taken lightly.

In an investigation of the relationship between family
processes and self-reported and official delinquency
records, interviews and record reviews of all seventh and
eighth graders in Rochester, N.Y. were completed (Krohn,
Stern, Thornberry, & Jang, 1992). This study used a sample
that was mostly male and African-American, but no gender or
race comparisons were made. Correlations were calculated
to display associations between several family cohesion and
parental control variables with both self-reported and
officially recorded delinquency. Both parents and their
adolescent children were asked to provide data on the family
processes. For both parents and adolescents, high ratings
on cohesion variables such as “attachment” and “involvement”
were negatively associated with both measures of
delinquency. In addition, the control variable

“supervision” held the same pattern. For the adults,

61

“consistency of discipline” was negatively associated with
both delinquency measures, while it was only associated with
self-reported delinquency for the adolescents. For the
adolescents, also negatively associated with self-reported
delinquency were “positive parenting” and “communication”.
These may be perceived as factors which integrate aspects of
cohesion and control.

Sheilds and Clarke (1995) studied the relationships of
family cohesion and parental control with self-reported
delinquency. The authors noted that previous research
indicated that affective family interactions, including
acceptance and responsiveness to child needs are negatively
associated with delinquent behaviors, as is a control
strategy which establishes flexible limits without being
excessively demanding. In their investigation, the sample
consisted of 480 adolescents, slightly over half of whom
were male, with only 13% of “minority” status. For these
young people, high “family cohesion” was negatively
associated with delinquency. Due to what may have been
psychometric problems with the measures or inadequate
conceptualization of the parental control variable, however,
no significant relationships between the degree of
flexibility in parental control and delinquency were found.
This finding is not consistent with those of similar
studies.

While higher levels of disturbance in the family

characteristics of cohesion and control are linked to higher

62

 

levels of violent offenses among youth of all ethnic groups,
there are some specific findings relevant to African-
American youth. In a study of 362 low income African-
American and Latino youth, a subgroup of violent offenders
reported poorer discipline, less cohesion, and less
involvement in their families than the non-offending or non—
violent offending groups, and the groups were not
differentiated by the commonly listed variables of frequency
or early onset of delinquent behavior (Gorman-Smith, Tolan,
Zelli, & Huesmann, 1996). In addition, it was found that
the African-American youth from families with stronger
beliefs in family duty and family loyalty were less likely
to be violent delinquents.

As a body, studies of the associations of cohesion and
control to delinquency provide firm support for the primary
role of the relationship between parents and their children
in the generation and maintenance of illegal adolescent
behavior. Consistent across investigations, is the
significant and powerful effect of sustained parental
efforts to value the child, be responsive to the child’s
needs, and maintain some developmentally appropriate
connection into adolescence. In addition, the notable, but
somewhat less clear contribution of parental control may
operate on the basis of a non-linear or threshold function.
It also may be that parental discipline is really a proxy
for cohesion, in that only parents who care and are attached

to their children will provide consistent yet flexible

63

limits. Also, since findings reveal associations of extreme
forms of discipline with delinquency, perhaps harsh or
violent parental actions are experienced as something other
than cohesion and are more reflective of limited parenting
skills, parental self-absorption, or inaccurate assessment
of the needs of the child. In other words, a parent who
attempts to control child behaviors with harsh measures, may
be responding with limited resources, or out of a desire to
limit the child’s behavior for the adult's own benefit. It
appears that further research on these issues is warranted.
Particular associations among these factors with African-

American youth should also be investigated.

Chapter 4

method

This chapter includes subsections that present a
statement of the problem to be addressed, a description of
the selection of participants, an explanation of the
procedures used to collect and organize data, a presentation
of the research design, discussion of the measures applied,

and an outline of data analysis techniques employed.

Statement of the Problem

As may be gathered from the included review of the
historical and research literature, a great deal of effort
has been directed toward uncovering the connections between
personal and environmental factors in the production of
delinquent behaviors in adolescents. Taken together, prior
research has been successful in developing separate pictures
of successive levels of the social ecology. It is clear
that social factors such as limited opportunity, personal
experience of stress and coping, and family functioning in
the areas of cohesion and control, are linked to delinquent
behaviors. A reasonable case has also been made regarding
the inequitable representation of African-American males in
secure settings across the United States, and the mounting
risk of increasingly punitive responses to juvenile crime

committed by this group of youth.

65

There are, however, some gaps in existing knowledge as
it relates to these issues. The specific needs of African-
American youth have not been systematically investigated.
Prior research indicates that there are at least some
relationships among relevant variables that differ for sub-
samples of African-American and European-American youth, but
no located studies focus exclusively on these issues as they
pertain to the youth at greatest risk. A linkage of
delinquency and placement has been assumed in much of the
literature, but only limited knowledge is available
regarding the social ecologies of youth who are most likely
to be confined once delinquent behavior has been detected.
In addition, patterns of placement, including specification
of models of environmental and personal factors which either
mediate or explain repeated confinements, have not been made
available. The problem of repeated placements of African-
American male adolescents may also be understood through
application of dynamic systems modeling that allows
investigation of cybernetic feedback in the ecological
system.

This study may be located as an extension of the
literature on delinquency, with a specification of the
associations of personal and environmental variables that
perpetuate a high risk situation for a growing population of
American youth. In this way, the present study attempts to
address intellectual, moral, social, and practical problems.

Intellectually, there is a challenge to specify ecological

66

linkages of the person-in—environment and apply a
methodology that extends the correlational approach to focus
on the feedback in natural systems. Morally, the undue risk
of confinement for African-American youth requires better
understanding and improved intervention. The social problem
of delinquency and the expenditure of public resources for
control and change is one of historical proportions that
still cries out for more effective means of decision-making.
Finally, on a practical level, the efforts of policy-makers
and treatment providers may benefit from a clearer
understanding and an expanded view of the needs and risks
involved for African-American male youth.

While this study provides some answers to the questions
raised by a review of the existing literature, it is
apparent that the use of an existing data set, the
restrictions of a retrospective and correlational design,
and the non-probability sample drawn, impose limitations on
the external validity of its findings. In this way, the
intended goal is incremental knowledge rather than grand

theory building.

Participant Sample

Participants in this study were drawn from the total
population of African-American male adolescents placed at
Boysville of Michigan during the full operation of the

agency’s clinical information system from 1985 to 1993.

67

They may be considered to comprise a purposive sample, as
they were selected by the criteria of race, sex, official
report of delinquency, out-of—home placement, and completion
of a full set of clinical assessment instruments (described
below in the Measures section). The completion of the
clinical measures is the only known difference between these
youth and the remainder of the African-American males placed
at the agency during this period. Including the variables
contained in the clinical measures was crucial to the
ecological focus of this study. The total sample numbers
171. A more thorough presentation of selected participant
characteristics is included in Chapter 5 as part of the
descriptive analysis.

The sample size is adequate for the analyses conducted.
Adequacy of the sample size was assessed following the
procedure specified by Tabachnick and Fidell (1996). With
an interest in both overall models and individual variable
effects, it was determined that a sample size of 110 cases
would support up to six independent variables in standard
multiple regression, with significance set at .05, and an
expected effect size of .15. With 171 cases, a margin of
safety is observed for smaller observed effect sizes,

distribution problems, or measurement error.

68

Data Management Procedures

This study took place in the context of an agency that
serves delinquent youth in multiple locations. Boysville of
Michigan was selected as the host agency for a number of
reasons. It is the largest private agency in Michigan that
serves delinquent youth and their families and provides a
range of services to diverse clients. Its out-of—home
placements cover the spectrum from foster care, through
community based group homes, to campus based residential
settings, and alternative detention facilities.

Data for this study were collected through client
intake procedures and clinically-relevant measures that were
integrated into the clinical information system of the host
agency (Grasso & Epstein, 1987). They may be considered to
be archival data, in that they were routinely collected into
an historical database.

Agency staff were responsible for data collection.
Measures were obtained at the initiation of the most recent
out-of-home placement (intake to a Boysville program),
except for release data which were necessarily obtained at
the termination of placement. Demographics and offense
history were retrieved from the case file and through an
interview by the intake worker; stress, coping, and family
functioning data were obtained through self-report from
participants; and placement termination data were reported

by a member of the youth’s treatment team.

69

At each agency site, the intake worker was responsible
for completion of the intake form following an interview of
the youth, parent if available, and the delinquency services
worker; the family therapist administered the clinical
measures of stressors, coping strategies, and family
functioning to the youth; and the treatment director
reported case closing information at the point of release
from the placement. All staff who contributed to data
collection were trained in data collection techniques, and
provided with a research manual which documented
responsibilities and procedures as well as definitions of
all terms.

The purposes of data collection (for assessment of
individual treatment needs, and further study of aggregate
characteristics of the agency’s client population), were
fully explained to participants by the intake worker, assent
obtained from the youth, and informed consent obtained from
a responsible adult (parent(s) and/or delinquency services
worker). Participants verbally agreed to complete the
clinical assessment instruments for treatment and research
purposes. All participants indicated that they understood
that they were not compelled to complete the instruments;
they could choose which information, if any, to submit; that
all treatment services would be provided regardless of
completion of the instruments; and that any youth (or
guardian) could choose to terminate participation in the

study at any time, without penalty.

70

 

 

Each participant was issued a unique numeric identifier
to ensure confidentiality and facilitate data tracking. No
list of names or other means of identifying participants by
name was available to the researcher, therefore, anonymity
exists within the study.

The placement and ecological variables were entered
into a specially constructed data file for this analysis.
Categorical variables were recoded as dichotomous variables
for inclusion in the regression models. Distributions were
analyzed for kurtosis and skewness and, where appropriate,
were transformed to improve the analyses, as recommended by
Tabachnick and Fidell (1996). These are specified in the

Measures section.

Research Design

This study employs a retrospective correlational
design. Variables are measured for a single sample at
single respective data collection points and associations
among them, and with outcome variables, are identified. It
may be considered a naturalistic or observational design, in
that naturally occurring events are the object of
investigation, and the experiences of the participants are
not subject to experimental manipulation. The study may
also be termed exploratory in its attempt to better
understand a social problem about which little is known.

The design suits the explanatory intent of the

71

investigation.

Although it suffers from limits on control of variables
and threats to external validity, this design retains
notable utility in this application. This correlational
design carries the advantages of access to a reasonably
sized homogeneous sample of confined African-American males;
potential for in-depth quantitative examination of the
relationship of several relevant variables at the personal,
family, and community levels; and greater opportunity to
develop understanding about this sample than would be
possible in a controlled experiment based on the limited
state of knowledge about this problem. Although an
existing dataset carries the convenience of readily
accessible data, this design was chosen for more than its
mere convenience. It is important to note that the
comprehensiveness of these data are necessary to inform an
ecological investigation. A non-experimental design also
obviates moral difficulties with random selection and
assignment of minority youth to confined conditions and
attendant compromises to public safety. The strengths and
limitations of this design will be further discussed in

Chapter 6.

Measures

In addition to agency developed forms, assessment

inventories designed for research and practice were selected

72

by the agency to provide information that would be useful
for intervention and investigations such as the present

study. They are described in detail below.

Intake Fbrn

The Intake Form is an agency developed tool that is
designed to collect client characteristics at entry. A
single trained staff member at each agency site completed
the form to ensure consistency in data collection.

Variables are measured primarily in categorical form.

Adolescent - Family Inventory of Life Event: and

Changes (A- FILE)

Growing out of research and practice with family stress
across the life cycle, the A-FILE is a fifty item self-
report instrument designed to record normative and non—
normative life events and changes an adolescent perceives
his or her family has experienced during the past twelve
months (McCubbin, Patterson, Bauman & Harris, 1981).' A-FILE
also records these events as experienced prior to the past
year. The instrument provides an index of the adolescent’s
vulnerability to the stressors encountered by all family
members. A-FILE was developed for completion by adolescents
of junior and senior high school age.

The primary measure derived from A-FILE is Total Family

73

Life Changes. Internal reliability (Chronbach’s Alpha) is
.69. Test-retest reliability is .82.

Subscales, with their respective internal and test-retest
reliabilities, include Family Transitions (.53/.80),
Sexuality (.45/.90), Losses (.46/.82), Responsibilities and
Strains (.76/.69), Substance Use (.63/.81), and Legal
Conflict.(.62/.81).

A confirmatory factor analysis of the AFILE scales was
used to test the reliability and validity of the published
scales for this sample. The reader is referred to Chapter 5
for extensive description of this analysis and the
processing of results. This analysis indicated that,
regardless of modification, the original scales would not
pass the test for parallelism (statistical distinctiveness
from each other), although some variations did pass the
significance test for internal consistency. It appeared
that the items in AFILE might be unidimensional, but even as
a single scale, it was not possible to pass the test for
parallelism when these items were included in a factor
analysis with the coping and family functioning items.

A review of the literature on development of the AFILE
indicated that the scales were not constructed through
factor analysis, but rather by conceptually clustering items
into types or categories of stressors (McCubbin & Patterson
1991). A subsequent factor analytic procedure was used to
assign factor loadings to the items and compute the scale

reliabilities. Such an approach is based on a recognition

74

that the items refer to events, and that contact with a
particular stressor will not necessarily correlate with that
of another stressor, especially over the short time span to
which these items are referenced. For example, two notable
losses, such as the death of a parent and the death of a
sibling, may not be statistically associated over the course
of one year, unless there is a common cause of death such as
the same accident, or a rapidly rising genetic
predisposition. It is, perhaps, as likely that the death of
a parent will not be related to the death of a sibling even
though they may both be experienced and conceptually grouped
as losses. From a logical perspective, therefore,
exploratory factor analysis would not be an appropriate
procedure to use to cluster items.

The new scale, Family Tensions, was constructed through
application of a conceptual strategy similar to that used by
the original authors of the instrument, and validated
through confirmatory factor analysis (see Chapter 5). Items
that address arguments and conflicts within the family were
selected and tested in a confirmatory factor analysis with
the items of the original scales of Losses and Transitions,
which were used as distinct representations of the original
scales. Only Family Tensions passed tests for internal
consistency and parallelism. Its alpha was computed to be
.71. It was included as the only stressor measure in the
correlation and regression analyses. Its inclusion is

consistent with theory and clinical knowledge about the

75

sample. Original AFILE items assigned to Family Tensions

and their new factor loadings are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Family Tensionsltems and Factor Loadings

 

 

Item Factor Loading
29. A family member has emotional problems. .41
37. Increase in arguments between parents. .60
39. Parents and teenagers have increased arguments .57
over use of the car or hours to stay out.
40. Parents and teenagers have increased arguments over .48
choice of friends and/or social activities.
41. Parents and teenagers have increased arguments over .57
attendance at religious activities.
42. Parents and teenagers have increased arguments over .39
personal appearance (clothes, hair, etc.)
43. Increased arguments about getting jobs done at home. .52
44. Increased pressure for a member in school to get .32

“good” grades or do well in sports or school activities.

 

Adhleecent ceping'Orientation £br.Problem.Erperiencee

(ACOPE)

In concert with developmental theory, ACOPE is a fifty-
four item self-report instrument designed to identify the
behaviors adolescents find helpful in managing problems or

difficult situations as they strive for a functional balance

76

of independence and connection with parents (Patterson &
McCubbin, 1983). The instrument provides information about
the coping strategies the adolescent prefers when faced with
personal or family stressors, or difficult life changes in
general. Subscales and their internal consistency
reliabilities include Ventilation (.75), Low Level Activity
(.75), Self-Reliance (.69), Emotional Connections (.75),
Family Problem-Solving (.71), Passive Problem-Solving (.71),
Spiritual Support (.72), Friendship Support (.76),
Professional Support (.50), High Activity Level (.67), Humor
(.72), and Relaxation (.60).

A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to assess
the psychometric properties of this instrument for this
sample of African-American male delinquents. For more
information about this analysis and its results, please see
Chapter 5. Despite exhaustive attempts to maintain versions
of the original subscales, they did not meet acceptable
levels of internal consistency and independence from one
another for this sample.

Two factors emerged from confirmatory factor analysis.
The original Ventilation scale was supported. Its internal
consistency alpha for this sample was .72. A new subscale
was derived and named Personal Investment, because it
encompassed applications of various personal strengths to
developing and caring for one‘s self. Personal Investment
showed an alpha of .80. In addition, both of these factors

passed tests for internal consistency and parallelism when

77

included in a factor analysis with the stressor and family
functioning items (see Chapter 5). Original ACOPE items and
their new factor loadings in Ventilation are shown in Table

2, and those included in Personal Investment are shown in

Table 3.

Table 2 Ventilation Items and Factor Loadings

 

 

Item Factor Loading
19. Get angry and yell at people. .74
22. Let off steam by complaining to family members. .40
26. Swear. .45
28. Blame others for what’s going on. .78
49. Say mean things to people; be sarcastic. .57

 

Table 3 Personal lnvestrnent Cog'ng Items and Factor Loadings

 

 

Item Factor Loading
10. Get more involved in activities at school. .67
13. Try to improve yourself (get body in shape, get .64
better grades, etc).
25. Organize your life and what you have to do. .66
27. Work hard onschoolworkor projects. .73
30. Try to help other people solve their problems. .61
41. 00 things with your family. .63
48. Sleep. .46

 

78

Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES
II)

Based on family theory and family therapy, the FACES II
is a thirty item self-report measure that is designed to
identify the degree of adaptability and cohesion employed by
a family (Olson, Portner & Bell, 1982). Family Adaptability
is defined as the ability of the family system to change its
power structure, role relationships, and relationship rules
in response to situational and developmental stress. It is
a concept that captures the degree of flexibility that the
family uses to change in the face of life demands. Family
Cohesion is defined as the emotional bonding family members
experience with one—another.

The dimension of Adaptability has an internal
reliability of .78, and includes the sub-dimensions of
Assertiveness, Leadership (Control), Discipline,
Negotiation, Roles, and Rules. These sub-dimensions closely
approximate aspects of Parental Control that were noted in
the literature review.

The dimension of Cohesion has a computed reliability of
.87 and includes the sub-dimensions of Emotional Bonding,
Family Boundaries, Coalitions, Time, Space, Friends,
Decision-Making, and Interests and Recreation. These sub-
dimensions capture aspects of Family Cohesion that arose in
the literature review.

Although the original conceptualization of these

dimensions incorporated a complicated “Circumplex Model”

79

wherein the dimensions were considered to be curvilinear,
methodological and theoretical challenges have been mounted,
and a linear interpretation is now considered to be more
acceptable (Perosa & Perosa, 1990; Green, 1991; Olson &
Tiesel, 1991). This means that it would be possible to type
families according to their particular combination of the
levels of Adaptability and Cohesion. Levels of Adaptability
(from low to high) include Rigid, Structured, Flexible, and
Chaotic. Levels of Cohesion (from low to high) include
Disengaged, Separated, Connected, and Enmeshed.

By arranging the levels of Adaptability and Cohesion in
a four-by-four figure, it is possible to identify sixteen
distinct types of family functioning. These are shown in
Figure 2. They include Chaotic-Disengaged, Chaotic-
Separated, Chaotic-Connected, Chaotic-Enmeshed, Flexible-
Disengaged, Flexible-Separated, Flexible-Connected,
Flexible-Enmeshed, Structured-Disengaged, Structured—
Separated, Structured-Connected, Structured-Enmeshed, Rigid—
Disengaged, Rigid—Separated, Rigid-Connected, and Rigid-
Enmeshed.

Respondents are asked to complete the instrument twice,
once to provide their assessment of how things are now
(Real), and then how they would like things to be (Ideal),
so a measure of satisfaction is also possible. For purposes
of this study, only the “Real” measure was considered.

A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to assess

the psychometric properties of the FACES II for this sample

80

of African-American families of delinquents based on the
youth’s present perception. For further information about
this procedure and its results, refer to Chapter 5. The
original intent was to use separate Parental Control and
Family Cohesion factors, and a representation of family type
in the correlation and regression analyses. Despite
exhaustive attempts to maintain the original subscales, they
did not show adequate combinations of alphas and
significance of internal consistency and parallelism. In
fact, the primary scales of Adaptability and Cohesion did

not survive the confirmatory factor analysis.

 

 

<-—-Low COHESION High—>
Disengaged Separated Connected Enmeshed
A
High
A Chaotic- Chaotic- Chaotic- Chaotic-
D Chaotic Disengaged Separabd Connected Enmeshed
A
P Flexible- Flexible- F lexible- Flexible-
T Flexible Disengaged Separabd Connected Enmeshed
A
B Slructured- Structured- Structured- Structured.
I Structured Disengaged Sepade Connected Enmeshed
L .
I Rigid- Rigid- Rigid- Rigid-
T Rigid Disengaged Separated Connected Enmeshed
Y
Low
v

Figure 2. Sixteen Types of Family Functioning

81

It was determined that for this sample, the distinction
between Adaptability and Cohesion was not significantly
measured by the instrument. As a result, a single scale of
Family Functioning was constructed. This scale consists of
items that represent aspects of Family Cohesion and Parental
Control. It showed an alpha of .88. In addition, it passed
tests for internal consistency and parallelism when included
in a factor analysis with the stressor and coping items. It
is the best measure of cohesion and control that is allowed
by the existing dataset, but it necessarily combines these
two key factors of interest. A decision was made to enter
the family functioning factor into the analyses, rather than
to proceed with separate factors that were not adequately
measured. Original FACES II items that were retained in the

Family Functioning factor are shown in Table 4.

Ghee Closing'Report

The Case Closing Report is an agency developed tool
designed to record administrative and program completion
information at the time the youth is released from the
facility. Specific instructions for completion of all items
are provided to staff members. Variables are measured

primarily in categorical form.

82

Table 4 Family Functioning Items and Factor Loadings

 

Item Factor Loading

 

From Family Cohesion

1. Family members are supportive of each other during .62
difficult times.

3. It is easier to discuss problems with people outside .59
the family than with other family members.

7. Our family does things together. .61

19. Famrly members feel closer to people outside the family .63
than to other family members.

21. Family members 90 along with what the family decides to do. .68

From Famiu Adagtabilgy’

2. In our family, it is easy for everyone to express his/her opinion. .61
4. Each family member has input in major family decisions. .58
8. Family members discuss problems and feel good about the .57
solutions.
10. We shift household responsibilities from person to person. .52
16. In solving problems, the children’s suggestions are followed. .57
18. Discipline is fair in our family. .54
22. In our family, everyone shares responsibilities. .67
26. When problems arise, we compromise. .48

 

83

Variables and Operational Definitions

It was not deemed practical to conduct an exhaustive
investigation of all potentially relevant variables in this
study. It must, therefore, be noted, that although racism
is unmeasured in this study, it is assumed to be an
environmental feature for this African-American sample. It
may be embedded in urban environments that are essentially
segregated, opportunities that are systematically limited,
and juvenile justice system decisions that lead to
placement. Other relevant factors such as variation in
quality of legal advice and policies of individual judges
have not been measured. Included variables, their
definitions, and the instruments with which the data are

gathered are listed below.

Dependant/Criterion variables

Two forms of out—of—home placement are considered in
this study. They were selected as representations of
different aspects of disproportionate minority confinement.
Out-of-HOme Placements captures the frequency of
confinements, and Length of Stay represents the duration of

the most recently completed placement.

Out-of-Home Placements is addressed in three forms. Prior

Placements is the number of out-of—home placements previous

84

to the most recent Boysville placement, as recorded on the
Intake Data Sheet. Number of Placements is defined as the
number of prior out-of—home placements, plus one for the
Boysville placement. It is used in the correlational and
regression analyses. Total Placements is a version of this
variable that is computed by summing the number of prior
placements, the Boysville placement, and any out-of—home
placement in the post-release period. Due to the issue of
singularity and the need for temporal ordering, Total
Placements is used for the correlational schematic that
takes into account all program variables. The original
distributions of these placement variables evidenced
problems with kurtosis and skewness and were transformed
using a natural log transformation following directives
offered by Tabachnick and Fidell (1996). For descriptive
and regression analyses, the observed distributions of Prior
Placements and Number of Placements were used for
consistency of interpretation. For the correlations and
correlational schematic, transformed Adjudications, Prior
Placements, and Total Out-of-HOme Placements were employed

in order to improve the analysis.

Length of Stay (LOS) is a measure of the duration of the
most recent confinement as recorded on the Case Closing
Report. It is indicated by dates of intake and release,
which are then used to compute units in months reported to

two decimal places. This variable showed a normal

85

distribution.

Ind-pendant/Predictor variables

Age at Intake is recorded on the Intake Data Form. For
purposes of this study, it is used in a computed form of

years to two decimal places.

Family Type is recorded on the Intake Data Form. This
categorical variable is recoded as the dichotomous variable
Single Parent Family using dummy coding to represent Single
Parent Family or Not Single Parent Family. Code 0=1
Reconstituted, 2 Nuclear, 4 Foster, 5 Adoptive, 6 Extended.

Code 1=Single Parent.

County of Residence is reported on the Intake Data Form.
This categorical variable is recoded as the dichotomous
variable Urban Environment in order to measure the
contribution of an urban environment. It is recognized that
this variable holds a place as a proxy for what could be a
more advanced measure of the youth's environment. Wayne,
Oakland, and Macomb counties were included as the recognized
“tri-county” metropolitan area of the city of Detroit;
Saginaw county was included because of its inclusion of the
city of Saginaw; and Genessee county was included because it
contains the city of Flint. All other counties were coded

as Not Urban. This coding scheme was uncomplicated by

86

sample youth coming from counties with marginal urban areas,
and a relatively high degree of confidence in its ability to

represent urban environments has been imparted.

Intake Living Situation (the approved legal residence
immediately prior to the most recent placement) is recorded
on the Intake Data Form. This categorical variable was
recoded as the dichotomous variable Intake from HOme. Code
0=3 Group Home, 5 Jail, 6 Youth Home, 7 Shelter, 8 Private
Care Facility, 9 State Institution, 10 Mental Hospital, 11
Other. Code 1=Family as described in Family Type, 2 Family
other than as described in Family Type, 4 Independent

Living.

Status Offenses is defined as the number of status offenses
officially reported in the case file and recorded on the
Intake Data Form. Status offenses involve behaviors such as
truancy, curfew violation, possession of tobacco, and
incorrigibility that are violations of the law only when one

has not yet reached the age of majority.

Phlony Offenses is defined as the number of felony offenses
officially reported in the case file and recorded on the
Intake Data Form. Felony offenses are serious crimes

against persons or property.

Adjudications is defined as the number of juvenile court

87

adjudications officially reported in the case file and
recorded on the Intake Data Form. Adjudications refer to
juvenile court appearances wherein the adolescent was found

guilty of a law violation.

The youth’s contact with stressors is represented by the
Family Tensions scale explained above. It was constructed
from the included AFILE items and was scored as a simple
count of the youth’s affirmative responses to the items,

using the most recent twelve month time frame.

The youth’s use of coping strategies is represented by the
Personal Investment and Ventilation scales explained above.
These were constructed from the ACOPE. Scale scores were
calculated by obtaining the mean of all included item

responses for each participant.

Parental Control and Family Cohesion are represented by the
Family FUnctioning scale explained above. It was
constructed from the FACES II. This scale was scored by
obtaining the mean of all included item responses for each
participant. Responses for reverse stated items were

reflected as outlined for the original instrument.

Successful program completion is measured by attainment of
Integrated Treatment Plan Objectives as reported on the Case

Closing Report. This is a staff assessment of the youth's

progress toward the treatment goals that were outlined
during the initial treatment planning conference. This
categorical variable is recoded as the dichotomous variable
Successful Program Completion. Code 0=3 Some, 4 None, 5 Not

Applicable. Code 1=l All, 2 Most.

Reason for Release is recorded on the Case Closing Report.
Successful completion is defined by types of “acceptable”
discharge from placement. This categorical variable was
recoded as the dichotomous variable Successful Release.
Code 0=3 Administrative Discharge, 4 Administrative
Termination, 5 Court Termination, 6 State Termination, 7
Inactive (extended truancy). Code 1=1 Boysville Release, 2

Administrative Release.

Post Placement Destination is recorded on the Case Closing
Report. This categorical variable is recoded as the
dichotomous variable Aftercare Home Placement. Code 0=3
Foster Care, 5 Private Residential, 6 Group Home, 7 County
Residential, 8 Psychiatric Institution, 9 State Institution,
12 Non-Secure Shelter, 13 Other, 14 Unknown (usually used
for youth who are truant from the authorized placement).
Code 1= 1 Parent's Home, 2 Relative's Home, 4 Adoptive Home,

10 Independent Living, 11 Armed Services.

89

Planned Analyses

Psychometrics

The measurement characteristics of the published
clinical assessment instruments (AFILE, ACOPE, and FACES II)
were assessed using confirmatory factor analysis. Hunter’s
CFA program in Package was used for this analysis (Hunter &
Hamilton, 1992). This was undertaken to establish the
validity of these measures for an exclusively African—
American male delinquent sample.

Initially, a separate confirmatory factor analysis of
each instrument was run to test the overall measurement
models and to identify and eliminate low quality items.
Items that cross-loaded on two or more factors were
eliminated, as were those whose factor loadings were less
than .2. Next, a confirmatory factor analysis of all the
surviving items from all three measures was run to test the
independence of the stressor, coping, and family functioning
constructs. These constructs were supported. This set of
items was then used to fine tune new scales as described
above, reviewed for conceptual clarity and then tested for
item quality and independence of factors. The results of

these factor tests are explicated in Chapter 5.

Description of Sample

Frequencies and distributions of all included variables
were obtained to describe the characteristics of the
participants. Mean and modal values were also used to
construct a narrative description of the normative youth in

this sample.

Associations

Correlations among all pairs of included variables were
obtained to identify significant relationships in the form
of Pearson product—moment correlations, significant at the

.05 level.

.MUltiple Regression Analysis

Standard multiple regression was used to explain two
forms of out-of-home placement. Blocks of variables were
regressed onto Number of Placements and Length of Stay,
using a simultaneous procedure. This method was deemed more
appropriate than hierarchical or stepwise procedures due to
the lack of empirical knowledge about the relationships of
the independent and dependent variables, and the exploratory
nature of the study. The form of analysis used here may be
interpreted as a way of comparing limited sets of
independent variables to see which set best explains the
dependent variables. The blocks were constructed on the

bases of logical consistency of variables with others in the

9|

block, theoretical and practice value of understanding the
contribution of the block, and temporal order of the

variables.

Schematic of Correlations

A correlational diagram was used to present an overall
model of the observed variables that explains a youth’s
Total Out-of—Home Placements. Despite its appearance, it
should be noted that this is not intended to represent a
path analysis. This diagram was constructed post-hoc with
the observed correlations among the variables. It accounts
for their temporal ordering, but is not intended to satisfy
strict requirements regarding a priori ordering of variables
that apply to structural equation modeling or other path
modeling techniques. It is presented in Chapter 5 for its

heuristic value.

92

Chapter 5

Results

This chapter presents the findings of the study. It
provides the reader with the facts that were obtained from
the research conducted, explanatory comments, and the
author‘s description of what is important and noteworthy.
Discussion of interpretations, implications, and meanings of
the findings are contained in Chapter 6. Sections of this
chapter include information about the confirmatory factor
analyses, description of the sample, findings from the
correlational analysis, findings from the regression
analyses, and a presentation of the correlational schematic.
These sections are structured to present results that are
relevant to each respective research question and

hypothesis.

Research Questions

The research questions emerged from practice and an
interest in improving compliance with the policy mandate, as
set forth in the juvenile justice code, to reduce
disproportionate confinement of African-American male youth.
They were specified through a review of the literature on
disproportionate minority confinement and ecological factors
that impact African-American delinquents. The research

questions addressed, and their respective hypotheses are

93

 

shown in Table 5.

Table 5 Research Questions and Hypotheses

 

Research Question 1: What personal, family, and environmental characteristics
describe African-American male delinquents who experience out-of-home
placements?

Hypothesis 1: The typical African-American male placed out-of-the home is approximately
sixteen years old, from a single parent family, living in an urban environment, who has been
adjudicated for repeated delinquent offenses.

Hypothesis 2: This sample does not significantly differ from the agency population in age,
offense history, or placement history.

Research Question 2: What are the observed associations of personal, family,
and environmental variables for African-American male delinquents who
experience out-of-home placements?

Hypothesis 3: Number of Placements will be significantly and positively correlated with
Age at Intake, Status Offenses, Felony Offenses, Adjudications, Family Tensions, and the
Ventilation coping strategy.

Hypothesis 4: Number of Placements will be significantly and negatively correlated with
use of the Personal Investment coping strategy and Family Functioning.

Research Question 3: Which sets of variables best explain out-of-home
placements for African-American male delinquents?

Hypothesis 5: An ecological set of variables including age at intake, single parent family
We. adjudications, and family functioning will better explain Number of Placements than will
blocks that contain demographics, offense history, clinical characteristics, or family characteristics
alone.

Hypothesis 6: An ecological set of variables including Age at Intake, Felony Offenses, use
of a Ventilation coping strategy, and Number of Prior Placements, will better explain length of stay
in the most recent placement, than will blocks that contain demographics, offense history, clinical
characteristics, family characteristics, or placement history alone.

 

Psychanatrics of Clinical.nssessnnnt Instrumnnts

The purpose of conducting confirmatory factor analyses
of the published instruments used to measure stressors,
coping, and family functioning, was to ensure valid and
reliable measurement of the clinical constructs involved in
the study. While the intent was not to challenge the work
of those who developed these widely used instruments, it was
noted that the samples used for development of these
measures may have differed greatly from the participant
population targeted by this study. An implicit set of
hypotheses stipulated that a homogeneous sample of African-
American delinquent youth in placement may have contact with
different stressors, use different combinations of coping
activities, and experience different patterns of family
cohesion and control, than did the samples used for
production of the original scales. The AFILE used an
initial sample of 30 youth from a suburban high school, and
a subsequent sample described only as 500 junior and senior
high school students (McCubbin & Patterson, 1991). Although
three successive samples were used to develop the ACOPE
scales, each of these samples was characterized as upper-
middle to high socio-economic status (Patterson & McCubbin,
1991). The FACES II scales were constructed with “non-
problem” families who were predominately Lutheran and white
(Fredman & Sherman, 1987). While previous work had

established particular norms and cutting points for scoring

95

these instruments for application to a “non-White“
population (Grasso, 1985), it was deemed important to verify
the latent variables contained in the instruments or to
develop more appropriate scales if they were warranted. The
results of the confirmatory factor analyses of the AFILE,
ACOPE, and FACES II are described in separate sections
below. Significance of the internal consistency chi square,
tests for deviation from a unidimensional within-cluster
correlation matrix that allows for a variation in item
quality (Hunter & Hamilton, 1992). Internal consistency is
assessed on the basis of item-factor correlations.
Significance of the parallelism chi square tests for
parallel with allowance for variation in item quality
(Hunter & Hamilton, 1992). Parallelism refers to a form of
external consistency of a scale. If items of a scale
measure the same construct, then their pattern of
relationships to items outside the scale should be similar.
This pattern is assessed with ratios of scale items to other

included items.

AFILE

Results of the confirmatory factor analysis for the
AFILE items, shown in Table 6, indicated that the scales
included in the instrument were problematic in application
to this sample. The published internal consistency
reliabilities were noted to be relatively low (see Chapter

4), and none of the original scales had acceptable

96

combinations of alpha, significance of internal consistency,
and significance of parallelism. The stressor measure was,
thus, called into question. In line with the exploratory
purpose of the study in relation to the specified sample,
rather than broad generalization of findings or comparison
to other populations, it was decided to use the existing
items to construct new scales with acceptable psychometric

properties in this application.

Table 6 Psychometrics of Published Scales of AFILE

 

Original Scale Alpha Int/Consist df p Parallel df p
Chi Square Chi Square

 

Transitions .503 1 15.671 90 .036 49.390 65 .925
Sexuality .335 1.294 5 .936 30.507 15 .010
Losses .441 46.751 20 .000 48.137 30 .019

Responsibilities .752 246.237 170 .000 77.791 90 .817
and Strains

Substance Use .481 1.956 5 .855 19.959 15 .174

Legal Conflict .039 NIA - - 5.601 2 .061

 

N_o§: NIA indicates that the scale had only two items, and it was not possible to Mpute the
internal consistency chi square.

For the AFILE, a complication to scale modification was
introduced by a methodological issue regarding the
construction of stressful event measurement scales.

Clearly, the AFILE items refer to stressful events or what

97

fits into stress theory as “stressors” (Pearlin, 1989), but
the fit of these events into scales could not be adequately
accomplished by a statistical procedure alone. The
developers of the AFILE made explicit their decision to
conceptually cluster the items, without the expectation that
they be statistically related, into stressor categories
(McCubbin & Patterson, 1991). The conceptual categories
were submitted to confirmatory factor analysis to validate
the scales, and assign factor loadings to the items, as
reported in Chapter 4. The literature supports this
position by noting that stressors do not necessarily cluster
together in neat scales because of the low frequency of
serious stressors, such as loss by death (McCubbin &
Patterson, 1983). Thus, the incidence of one stressor may
not be correlated with the incidence of another stressor
that would conceptually fall into the same category. Other
researchers have utilized an alternative strategy that
applies weights to life events which reflect the relative
amount of change required by the individual to adapt to the
circumstances of the event (Dohrenwend & Dohrenwend, 1978;
Newcomb, Huba, & Bentler, 1986). Such a strategy is
inappropriate for the purpose of the AFILE as an inventory
of life events. Moreover, it is also inappropriate for the
present study which considers the presence or absence of
stressors in relation to outcome variables rather than
focusing concern on the degree of personal adaptation as a

measured variable.

98

For this study, an approach similar to the one used for
original AFILE scale development was used. Once low quality
items were removed as described in Chapter 4, the items were
conceptually grouped into categories and then submitted to
confirmatory factor analysis. One acceptable scale for
stressors was developed from the AFILE items. The emergent
scale was named Family Tensions because it included items
that centered on emotional and behavioral conflicts between
family members (see Chapter 4 for a complete list of items
and factor loadings). This scale exhibited acceptable
psychometrics and was clearly discriminated from items in
the instrument’s original Losses and Transitions scales,
which were used to test its parallelism. These

characteristics are shown in Table 9.

ACOPE

Confirmatory factor analysis of the ACOPE items alone
indicated that only the Ventilation, Diversions, and Social
Support scales showed acceptable alphas, significance of
internal consistency, and significance of parallelism.
These values are shown in Table 7.

When the AFILE, ACOPE, and FACES II items were combined
for confirmatory factor analysis of the stressor, coping,
and family functioning constructs, however, only the
Ventilation scale showed acceptable values. Another
acceptable scale emerged, which was named Personal

Investment, to represent its combination of self-development

99

Table 7 Psychometrics of Published Scales of ACOPE

 

Original Scale Alpha Int/Consist df p Parallel df p

Chi Square Chi Square
Ventilation .718 25.921 14 .026 85.125 55 .006
Diversions .778 35.483 27 .127 134.639 77 .000
Self-Reliance .608 25.134 14 .033 125.033 55 .000

Social Support .691 10.320 14 .738 88.046 55 .003

Solving Family .769 28.342 14 .013 72.547 55 .057

Problems

Avoiding .499 38.808 9 .000 122.182 44 .000
Spiritual .667 0.000 2 - 25.246 22 .285
Support

Close Friends .649 NIA - - 11.006 11 .443
Professional .347 N/A - - 15.291 1 1 .170
Support

Demanding .770 18.668 5 .000 38.903 33 .221
a I' 1

Humor .592 NIA - - 1 1 .791 1 1 .380
Relaxing .459 5.407 5 .368 90.492 33 .000

 

Ngtg: NIA indicates that the scale had only two items, and it was not possible to compute the
internal consistency chi square.

and support for others. Results of the confirmatory factor
analysis of the Ventilation and Personal Investment scales
are shown in Table 9. Items included in both scales are
listed in Chapter 4. Again, the decision to better specify

the measures for this sample was validated.

um

FACES II

An initial confirmatory factor analysis of the FACES II
items alone indicated that the sub-scales did not possess
acceptable combinations of alphas, significance of internal
consistency, and significance of parallelism for this
sample. These values are presented in Table 8.

The two primary scales, Adaptability and Cohesion,
passed the test for significance of parallelism. They also
showed acceptable alphas, probably due to a relatively high
number of items, but did not meet the significance test for
internal consistency. When the FACES II items were combined
with the AFILE and the ACOPE items to test the latent
constructs, their significance of parallelism disappeared.

Therefore, items from both scales were combined to
construct one scale of Family Functioning as described in
Chapter 4. Its psychometric properties were acceptable, as
may be seen in Table 9. The performance of this scale
substantiated the decision to test and reconstruct the

scales.

101

Table 8 Psychometrics of Published Scales of FACES II

 

Original Scale Alpha Int/Consist df p Parallel df p

 

Chi Square Chi Square
Q9_hcs_ig_n_ .779 214.915 1 19 .000 27.322 15 .026
Emotional .601 NIA - - 7.278 13 .887
Bonding
Family .400 NIA - - 7.426 13 .879
Boundaries
Coalitions .374 N/A - - 5.956 13 .948
Time .540 N/A - - 31.101 13 .003
Space .291 N/A - - 35.715 13 .000
Friends .305 NIA - - 14.570 13 .335
Decision- .347 NIA - - 10.072 13 .688
Making
Interests] .039 N/A - - 27.866 13 .009’
Recreation
Adaptabilgy' .739 138.408 90 .001 24.850 13 .024
Assertiveness .284 .070 2 - 71.864 26 .000
Leadership .347 NIA - - 24.286 12 .019
Discipline .291 N/A - - 29.558 13 .005
Negotiation .729 .000 2 - 15.667 26 .944
Roles .473 N/A - - 19.570 13 .106
Rules .182 NIA - - 18.457 13 .141

 

Ngtgs: NIA indicates that the scale had only two items, and it was not possible to compute the
internal consistency chi square.
* indicates that the chi square without gradient is reported, because value with gradient
could not be computed.

102

Table 9 Psychometrics of Scales Derived From AFILE, ACOPE,
and FACES II

 

 

Instrument Scale Alpha Int/Consist df p Parallel df p

 

(Derived) Chi Square Chi Square
AFILE Family .710 35.620 27 .124 24.155 14 .044
Tensions

ACOPE Ventilation .720 12.736 9 .175 23.745 8 .003

ACOPE Personal .820 16.100 20 .710 24.655 12 .017
Investment

FACES II Family .874 90.938 77 .132 37.014 24 .044
Functioning

 

Description of the Sample

The first research question focuses on a description of
the sample. Hypothesis 1 specifies the combination of
expected characteristics at the individual level.

Hypothesis 2 is concerned with the sample being
representative of the overall agency population of African-

American males.

Research Question 1: What personal, family, and

environmental characteristics describe African-American male

delinquents who experience out-of-home placements?

103

To address this question generally, descriptive
statistics for each of the original variables were
obtained. (Categorical rather than dichotomous forms, and
untransformed distributions of the continuous variables,
were used to simplify interpretation.) These descriptive
statistics include frequencies, means for continuous
variables, standard deviations, and maximum and minimum
values of the distributions. Frequencies and percentages
for each level of the categorical variables are considered.

The youngest delinquent taken into this placement was
not quite 13 years old, while the oldest was midway through
his seventeenth year. These values reflect the rules
governing juvenile justice in Michigan at the time, which
set minimum and maximum ages for intake at 12 and eighteen
18, respectively. The average age of the sample is about
15.5 years old with a standard deviation of 1.04.

Youth from single parent families predominated at 112,
or 65.5%. The remaining participants totaled 37 (about
21.5%) from two parent nuclear families, 18 (10.5%) from
extended families, two (about 1%) were adopted, and only
another two came from foster families. It should be noted
that the inclusion of foster families here is a departure
from the definition of foster care as an out-of—home
placement, which is due to the agency's definition of family
type. For purposes of the correlation and regression
analyses, the recoded version of this variable (Single

Parent Family Type) is used instead, and the small number of

HM

affected cases is seen to present little difficulty for
interpretation.

The vast majority of youth came from the metropolitan
Detroit area, with 105 from Wayne county, 11 from Macomb
county, and 4 from Oakland county, representing 70% of the
sample. Counties within 50 miles of Detroit that serve as
commuter bases include Lapeer and Livingston with five and
six cases respectively, combining for about 6% of the total.
Primarily urban counties, such as Genessee and Saginaw
containing the large cities of Flint and Saginaw, provided
another 10.5 % of the cases, with ten from Flint and eight
from Saginaw. The remainder of the youth came from
obviously rural counties. They totaled 20 cases and about
13% of the sample.

The bulk of these youth, 137 or 80%, came into
placement directly from their family homes. The next
largest subgroup, nine or just over 5%, came from private
facilities such as other residential programs. Shelters
used for child welfare cases contributed seven youth
comprising about 4% of the cases. Restrictive programs
provided the remainder of the cases, with six (3.5%) from
county youth homes, five (about 3%) from group homes, two
(1%) from a state institution, and two from county jail.
Only one youth came from a family setting other than that
indicated in his family type, and one case had missing data.

The offense history, court involvement, and placement

experience of these youth reveals much about their

105

delinquent careers. Ranges, means, and standard deviations
for offenses, adjudications, and prior placements are

summarized as delinquent careers in Table 10.

Table 10 Delinquent Careers of Participants

 

Minimum Maximum Mean SD
Status 0 2 .50 .71
Offenses
Felony 0 13 2.89 2.45
Offenses
Adjudications 0 16 2.58 2.25
Prior 0 21 2.44 2.62
Placements

 

The range of status offenses had a low value of zero
and a high value of two. Only 21, or about 12% of the
youth, committed two status offenses, while 44 (about 26%)
had a record of one. The records of 106, or 62%, of the
youth showed no status offenses. The mean number of status
offenses is .50, with a standard deviation of .71.‘ Felony
offenses are more numerous among the sample. The average
number of recorded felony offenses is 2.89 with a standard
deviation of 2.45. The range of values goes from zero to
13. Only three youth (less than 2%) committed felony

offenses at the levels of 11, 12, and 13 each, while 28

KM

(just over 16%) committed none. One felony offense was
attributed to 29 youth, or 17%, of the sample. A sizable
group committed two to five felonies. Twenty-seven youth
(about 16%) committed two felonies and the same number
committed three felonies. Four felonies were recorded for
28 youth or about 16%, and five felonies for 11 (just over
6% of the sample). The remainder of the youth committed
from six to nine felonies, with six committed by six youth
(3.5%), seven by seven youth (about 4%), eight by three
youth (under 2%), and nine by two youth (just over 1%).
Involvement with the juvenile court is a necessary
condition for out-of—home placement under normal
circumstances, but five youth (almost 3% of the sample)
showed no adjudications on their records. This is probably
explained by the fact that a case originally classed as a
child welfare case, could be “escalated” in placement if the
youth’s behavior becomes troublesome in the opinion of the
case worker. Thus, the initial basis for out-of—home
placement is provided by child protection laws, but the
child undergoes de facto categorization as a delinquent.
Most youth had records of one to four adjudications, with a
notable drop in frequency above that point. Fifty-three, or
31%, had one adjudication, 48 (about 28%) had two, 29 (17%)
had three, and 20 (almost 12%) had four. Four youth, or
about 2%, had five adjudications each, the same number had
six, and three had seven adjudications. One youth each

showed adjudications at the levels of nine, ten, 11, 15, and

107

16. The average number of adjudications was 2.58, with a
standard deviation of 2.25.

The previous placement data show that only 39, or about
23%, of the youth had not been placed out-of—the-home prior
to agency intake. The bulk of the cases were clustered
between one and five inclusive. Thirty youth (17.5%) had
been in one placement, and the same number had two
placements. Thirty-six (about 21%) were placed out of the
home three times prior, 13 (about 7.5%) had four prior
placements, and nine (about 5%) had been in five prior
placements. Three youth (less than 2%) had been in six
placements, four youth (just over 2%) were placed seven
times, three youth placed eight times, and two placed ten
times. One youth was placed out of the home 12 times, and
one exceptional case showed 21 prior out-of-home placements.
Using these data, the mean number of out—of-home placements
was 2.44, with a standard deviation of 2.62.

A total of 102 youth, or about 60%, had experienced two
or more out-of—home placements prior to the most recent
Boysville entry. With the addition of cases where there was
one placement prior to this Boysville intake, the total
number of youth with multiple placements (including the most
recent placement) rises to 132. This comprises 77% of the
sample.

Encounter with stressors is represented in the form of
Family Tensions. As may be seen in Table 11, for Family

Tensions, youth responded with a range of scores from one

108

through eight events over the 12 months immediately
preceding placement. The average was just over five, with a
standard deviation of about two. Most youth were clearly
clustered in the upper range of the distribution. Twenty-
eight (over 26%) reported eight stressors, 30 (17.5%)
identified seven, 24 (14%) noted six, and another 30 listed
five events. The remainder showed one to four events, with
seven (about 4%) indicating one Family Tension stressor, 20
(almost 12%) reporting two, and 16 (about 9.5%) each

reporting three and four stressful events.

Table 11 Experience of Family Tensions Stressors

 

Minimum:1 Maximum:8 Mean: 5.19 SD: 2.12 Events Frequency %

 

1 7 4%
2 20 12%
3 16 9.5%
4 16 9.5%
5 30 17.5%
6 24 14%
7 30 17.5%
8 28 16% ,

Totals 171 100%

 

Use of coping strategies was assessed with the Personal
Investment and Ventilation scales. Shown in Table 12 is the
range of scores for Personal Investment, which span from

just over one to five. The average score was 3.36, with a

109

standard deviation of .84. Ventilation showed a range from
one to five, with a mean of 2.74 and a standard deviation of
.80. These values indicate that both forms of coping are

often used by youth in this sample.

Table 12 Coping Strategies Used by Participants

 

Personal Investment Minimum: 1.14 Maximum:5 Mean: 3.36 SD: .84

 

Ventilation Minimum:1 Maximum: 4.80 Mean: 2.74 SD: .80

 

In order to test for a preference of one coping
strategy over the other, a Coping Difference score was
computed by obtaining standardized scores (2 scores) for
Personal Investment and Ventilation, and then subtracting
each participant's Ventilation score from his Personal
Investment score. Using scores above zero to represent
youth who preferred Personal Investment coping to
Ventilation coping, 84 cases were counted. Eighty-seven
youth preferred Ventilation coping, when scores less than or
equal to zero were counted.

Results for the Family Functioning scale showed a range
of scores from 1.23 to 4.54, with a mean of 3.10 and a
standard deviation of .64. These scores represent a
moderate level of family cohesion and control.

Length of stay ranged from a low of less than one month

(.73) to a high of 32 months. The mean was just over 15

H0

months, with a standard deviation of 6.50. Completion of
treatment goals showed 11 youth (about 6.5 %) completed all
goals, 49 (about 29%) Most, 76 (over 44%) Some, 23 (13.5%)
None, and 12 (7%) Not Applicable. This category would be
used for cases where discharge occurred too soon for the
initial assessment and formal treatment planning conference
to be completed, which was required within the first 30 days
of placement. Summing the percentages for the All and Most
categories shows that only about 35% of the youth
successfully completed their treatment goals.

Release type, however, indicates that most youth in the
sample were satisfactorily released from the program. This
is based on two categories. Boysville Release was reported
for 61 youth (almost 36%) and Administrative
Release included 40 youth (over 23%) for a total of about
59%. The remaining categories may be seen as unsatisfactory
discharges. Administrative Discharge accounted for 29 youth
(17%), Administrative Termination 25 (about 14.5%), Court
Termination 12 (7%), State Termination three (less than 2%),
and only one youth was discharged due to Inactive status.

As may be seen in Table 13, post placement destination
data show that upon release, 82 or 48% of the youth returned
to their parent’s home, 12 (7%) went to live with a
relative, seven (about 4%) started independent living, and
one entered the Armed Services. The placement of 22 (almost
13%) was unknown. The rest were placed in other out-of—home

placements. Fourteen (about 8%) entered a group home

In

program, 11 (about 6.5%) were sent to state institution, 12
(7%) entered foster care, two (about 1%) went to a private
residential program, and one entered a county residential
program. The remaining seven (about 4%) went to a non-

secure shelter.

Table 13 Post-Placement Destination

 

Frequency Percentage

 

 

Parents Home . 82 48%
Relative’s Home 12 7%
Independent Living 7 4%
Armed Services 1 -
Home Placements 102 60%
Group Home 14 8%
State Institution 11 6.5%
Foster Care 12 7%
Private Residential 2 1%
County Residential 1 -
Non-Secure Shelter 7 4%
Out-of-Home Placements 47 27%
Unknown 22 13%

 

Note: Detail does not add to totals due to rounding.

Hypothesis 1: The typical African—American male placed out-
of-the home is approximately sixteen years old, from a

single parent family, living in an urban environment, who

“2

has been adjudicated for repeated delinquent offenses.

This hypothesis was addressed by reviewing the
descriptive statistics outlined above. It is supported by
the data. The typical African-American male delinquent in
this sample is 15.5 years old. He comes from a single
parent family and resides in the Detroit metropolitan area.
His illegal behavior seems to have escalated rapidly. He
has either not engaged in minor juvenile infractions, or
else has been able to elude court attention for them, as his
formal record shows no pattern of status offenses. He has,
however, been apprehended for serious crimes. His juvenile
record includes three felony crimes against persons or
property and he has been petitioned by the juvenile court
and found to be delinquent three times. He came into the
most recent placement directly from his home, but he has
been placed elsewhere on two prior occasions.

He experiences a significant amount of family tension
involving arguments with his parent over many of his
personal choices including friends, dress, use of time, and
involvement in activities. To cope with these and other
sources of stress, he uses active problem solving methods to
develop himself and help others, but also resorts to
yelling, swearing, and threatening others when he gets
upset. His family usually operates with moderate levels of
emotional closeness and parental monitoring of his actions,

but there may be fluctuations in these functions under

H3

difficult conditions.

He will stay in this placement well over a year.
During that time, he will be expected to make progress
toward treatment goals that are established by his staff
team, but will perform only moderately well and achieve only
some of what was set out for him. Nonetheless, he will be
satisfactorily discharged from the facility and will return

to his parent’s home.

Hypothesis 2: This sample does not significantly differ
from the agency population in age, offense history, or

placement history.

Because one important criterion for sample selection
was completion of all the clinical assessment instruments,
it was deemed valuable to test whether this sample
significantly differed on key attributes from youth admitted
to the agency who did not complete the clinical instruments.

To test this hypothesis, the means of the sample for
age at intake, adjudications, status offenses, felony
offenses, and the number of previous placements were
compared with all other agency cases that met the conditions
of race, gender, and intake during the same years as the
sample. The only known difference between these groups was
that the research sample had completed all clinical
assessment instruments. The overall population numbered

about 1700 youth after the research sample was removed. The

114

means of the sample were compared with the means of the
population using a one sample t-test, with results shown in
Table 14. Agency population values were used as the test
values, a two-tailed test was computed, and a 95% confidence
interval was constructed.

Mean age at intake for the sample was 15.49 years, and
for the population it was 15.86 years. This difference
(.37) amounts to only about four and a half months, but it
is statistically significant (p=.000). The confidence
interval shows that in 95 of 100 cases the difference would
be nearly non-significant (l=-.529, u= -.214). It should be
noted, however, that for most clinical purposes, this

difference in age is probably not relevant.

Table 14 Comparison of Study Sample With Agency Population

 

Sample Agency t df signif. 95% conf. int.

Mean Mean
Ageatlntake 15.49 15.86 -4.661 170 000 I-.529,u -.214
Status Offenses .50 .40 1.096 170 058 I - .0004 , u .210
Felony Offenses 2.89 1.35 8.204 170 .000 I 1.170, H 1.910
Adjudications 2.58 1.94 3.754 170 000 I .310, u .980
PriorPlacements 2.44 2.77 -1.625 170 .106 7-720 ,u .007

 

Offense history showed mixed results. The mean number
of Status Offenses for the sample was .50 and the agency

population value was .40. The difference of .10 was not

US

significant (p=.058). Felony Offenses showed a mean of 2.89
for the sample against 1.35 for the population.

Intuitively, this difference of an average of one and a half
felonies appears to be an important difference, and the t-
test for this variable (with equal variances not assumed due
to the results of Levene’s Test, F=77.995,.p= .000) , showed
it to be statistically significant (p=.000). Even using a
95% confidence interval (l=1.17, u=1.91), the difference
.remains significant. Number of Adjudications showed a
sanmde mean of 2.58, with the agency group value at 1.94.
Tfiiis difference is statistically significant (p= .000), and
:Lt remains significant using a 95% confidence interval
Ll=.31, u=.97).

Number of Prior Placements indicated a non-significant
ciifference between the means (p=.106). The sample mean
Stands at 2.44 and the population at 2.77.

It appears from this analysis, that the study sample,
(those who completed the full set of clinical instruments)
ciiif'fers in some ways from the rest of the agency population
(If African-American males. The difference in age is
nOtable, but not appreciable. The similarity in status
<Diffense history and placement experience indicate parity of
tile sample and the population. The significant differences
id) adjudications and serious criminal behavior, however,
indicate that the sample may present an even greater risk to
the community than the rest of the agency population, and

that these youth may be at even higher risk themselves for

H6

continued out-of—home placement.

Associations Among variables

Research Question 2: What are the observed associations of
personal, family, and environmental variables for African—
American male delinquents who experience out-of—home

placements?

This question was addressed by computing the Pearson
Product-Moment correlations between the included variables.
Table 15 presents the correlations, showing two-tailed
significance at p5.01 (**) and at pg.05 (*), in a diagonal
matrix format. As is apparent from this matrix, even though
several correlations are significant, the effect sizes are
relatively low. Nonetheless, meaningful relationships among
the variables may be identified. They are presented here
and discussed further in the section dealing with the
correlational schematic and in Chapter 6. Appendix A
presents the values for these correlations corrected for
attenuation (Hunter & Hamilton, 1992). This procedure shows
what the correlations would be without the effect of
measurement error. It is based on a formula that divides
the observed correlation by the product of the square roots
of the reliabilities of the variables.

The older the youth at intake, the more felony offenses

H7

he is likely to have on his record. Younger delinquents are
more likely to come from single parent families, and have
shorter stays in placement than older youth. An adolescent
from a single parent family is also more likely to
experience a greater number of out-of—home placements
throughout his delinquent career. Earning a successful
release from the program is less likely for youth whose
families live in cities. Those with fewer adjudications are
more likely to come into placement directly from their
families’ homes rather than from another placement.

Felony offenders with long criminal records are not as
likely to stay a long time in this placement as compared to
those with fewer felony offenses. Youth with higher numbers
of prior placements tend to have higher levels of family
functioning as well. The youth with more placements are not
likely to stay a lengthy period in this one, but they will
also probably not complete many of their treatment goals.

A high number of stressors in the family is associated
with a likelihood that the youth will use a coping style
that ventilates his emotions, and that he will probably not
return to his family home upon release from the program.

Use of a ventilation coping strategy means there is less
chance that a youth will engage in personal investment types
of coping, but also that he will have a better chance of
going home when he leaves the agency.

Higher levels of family functioning are associated with

higher numbers of out-of—home placements, but the reader

”8

should be especially cautious about judging the direction of
this effect. Possible explanations are considered in the
section dealing with the correlational schematic.

Longer stays in placement increase the chances of a
successful release and returning to one’s family home.
Perhaps not surprisingly, a successful release from the

program increases the opportunity to return home.

H9

80.23

- 5o. - o3. o3. 3o. - Ro. - woo. woo. moo. £53
acne—n.
. o3. «No. . «No. . moo. ouo. . .omv. omo. - corn.

. ooo. moo. - .mmF. . ovo. moo. . o5. - coomofiag

 

$225
. so; so. moo. as. in. SE
880:0
- as. «3.. 8Q 87 £8
3%.
- 18 as; so. was:
- so. so. Se:
send
- .E. - 23m
. mos.
222m... eased 8225 mmmcmoo 9.55 E23
as: as. £832 223 meow 25: :25 29.6 0?
moanmaum>

 

Emumoum ocm Nucwfiwomam LHmUHcHHU .mmcmmmo .oficmmumoEoo macEd mcoHuMHoommm ma wanna

120

ooF.

ono.

emmw.a

moo. -

o8.

3o. -

mmo.

:Nom. -

m3.

2223
been.

3o. -

mmo. -

.mmv.

.2....

.09.

m5.

mmo.

achE
Bun.

m3.

mmo. .

mmo.

3o.

vmo. -

moo. -

nmo.

Pmo.

c3832

moo.

«No. .

moo. -

moo. -

moo.

«NNF.I

m:.-

mmo. -

rmo. .

82mg 8225

220...

m5. -

vuo. .

v.2.

o3. -

omo.

moo. -

wmo. -

mmo. -

o3. -

meow

moo. .

moo.

.3.

to.

mmo. -

omo.

«NF.

9.8:.
9:0:

mmo. .

mwo. .

3;.

bar. -

m3. -

mmo.

moo. -

_.~o.

:25

.89.

.mmfi

Em-

wmo. -

Fmo.

Fmo. -

now. -

moo. -

moo. -

E23
295

mesa

so. . .58
95a

as; .2252
2.2..

so. 28.22
232mm

mno. - .5885

semen.

80. .2885
as

:Nmm. - s 583
3:285“.

N3. - been.

moo. comm_m:m>

Eoémgs
mmo. Ecoflmd

oo<

.Ao.o:ouv ma magma

l2l

mused «£521

.32.

x .Lom. .

- 3o. -

8.6:
.8522 98.34.

ooF. -

omo. -

:mmm.

83mm
3805

.mmF. .

stw. I

omo. -

omo. .

Earned
$083

.oow. - om...
.E. - .oo_..
.voF. moo.
tame. F2. -
mFo. - Fmo. -

Em .o 8288:”.
59.3 $5...

omo. -

N5.

.mo—.

3?.

ooo.

m3.

m2..-

c8m_o=o>

3:82.“.

mmo. .38.
«Essa
moo. h3:52
0on
m3. sees:
082cm
omo. - 3.0.885
8.:on
R v. . $3803
as
so. a 593
@5885;
as. as:
zoom. . commacm>
sausage
- .2028
2252:.
.2088
.Ae.pcouv

ma manna.

122

Hypothesis 3: Namber of Placements will be significantly
and positively correlated with Age at Intake, Status
Offenses, Felony Offenses, Adjudications, Family Tensions,

and the ventilation coping strategy.

This hypothesis was stated in a compound fashion to
simplify presentation. Actually, the correlation of each
variable with Number of Placements is considered separately.

Number of Placements is not significantly correlated
with any of the variables named in this hypothesis using a
one-tailed test. Its correlation and level of significance
with Age at Intake is r= -.059, p=.223; Status Offenses
r = -.024, p= .379; Felony Offenses r= -.022, p= .387;
Adjudications r= .046, p= .276; Family Tensions r= .079, p=
.154; Ventilation r= .012, p= .440. Due to the weak effect
sizes, as well as the failure to pass the significance

level, this hypothesis is not supported.

Hypothesis 4: Namber of Placements will be significantly
and negatively correlated with use of the Personal

Investment coping strategy and Family Functioning.

Again, this hypothesis was stated in a compound fashion
to simplify presentation. The correlation of each variable
with Number of Placements is considered separately.

Number of Placements is neither negatively correlated

with Personal Investment nor Family Functioning using a one-

KB

tailed test at the p=.05 level. Rather, it is positively
and significantly correlated with Family Functioning r=
.166, p= .015. Its values for Personal Investment are r=
.026, p= .366. Due to the inverse of the predicted valence
of the association between Number of Placements and Family
Functioning, as well as the weak effect size and failure to
pass the level of significance of the association between
Number of Placements and Personal Investment, this
hypothesis is not supported.

Number of Placements is significantly correlated,
however, with other included variables, using a two-tailed
test at the p<.05 level. Its correlations with Single
Parent Family (r= .156, p= .041); with Length of Stay (r=
-.17l, p= .025); and with Successful Program Completion (r=
-.182, p= .017) are described in the explanation of the
correlation matrix above.

The need to reject this hypothesis could stem from a
cycle of repeated placements. These results may reflect the
impacts of one or more out-of—home placements on variables
that would normally be expected to lead to out-of—home
placements. For example, prior placements may have had a
positive impact on family functioning through treatment
efforts, or due to stabilization of delinquent behavior
through external control.

The association of out-of-home placements with
variables not included in the hypothesis shows that the

relationship with family composition may remain relatively

124

constant across the span of placements. Prior experience
with out—of—home placements, however, may allow the learning
of skills that reduce length of stay, but do not

significantly affect completion of all treatment goals.

iuultiple Regression Analysis of Out-of-Hcme Placements

Research Question 3: Which sets of variables best explain
out-of—home placements for African—American male

delinquents?

This question was addressed by focusing on two
dependent variables that represent forms of out-of—home
placement. Simultaneous Multiple Regression was used to
test models focused on Number of Placements, and Length of
Stay in the most recent placement, as dependent variables.
The following hypotheses specify the dependent variables and
the blocks that are expected to best explain them, using the
available data in standard multiple regression. By
independent variable, the models are tested for
significance, and compared with each other to determine
greatest explanatory value based on greatest percentage of
variance explained.

Because a standard multiple regression technique is
used, it is important to remember that the independent
variables would perform differently in other combinations.

Conclusions should not be drawn regarding the importance of

125

an individual variable outside the context of the specific
model in which it was tested. In the following
presentation, the contributions of the independent variables
are evaluated only as they compare with one another within

their respective block.

Hypothesis 5: An ecological set of variables including age
at intake, single parent family type, adjudications, and

family fhnctioning will better explain NUmber of Placements,
than will blocks that contain demographics, offense history,

clinical characteristics, or family characteristics alone.

This hypothesis is intended to test the relative value
of the models as they compare to one another. While other
combinations may come to mind for the reader, it should be
noted that the intent was not to test all possible
constructions, but rather to compare the explanatory value
of various systems levels by themselves, with a more
integrated systemic view. These models, therefore, were
constructed as representations of systemic levels in the
social ecology of the sample youth. The ecological model
employed here includes variables from successive system
levels in order to evaluate the additional understanding
that an ecological approach supposedly allows.

Specific to the ecological model, selection of the
independent variables was based on explicit rationales. Age

at Intake is included under the proposition that older youth

126

have greater exposure to accumulation of out-of— home
placements than do younger adolescents. Single Parent
Families have been identified in the literature as having
higher incidences of delinquency in their children
(Minuchin, Montalvo, Guerney, & Rosman, 1967; Benson &
Roehlkepartain, 1993; Kapp, McCubbin, & Thompson 1993;
Whittaker, Tripodi, & Grasso, 1993). Adjudications are used
to represent a juvenile justice system intervention that is
based on a formal recognition of the youth’s delinquent
behavior. The family functions of cohesion and control
embedded in the Family Functioning variable are shown in the
literature to be high correlates of delinquent behavior.
Model 1, shown in Table 16, uses demographic variables
including Urban Environment, Single Parent Family, and Age
at Intake to explain Number of Placements. This model shows
no problem with autocorrelation of residuals with a Durbin-
Watson statistic of 1.801 (1 1.693, u 1.774, p= .05). It
explains only about 1% of the variance (Adjusted R Square =
.013), however, and fails to achieve significance (F=l.735,
p= .162). Individual betas were also computed, and in the
context of this model, only Single Parent Family (beta=

.167, t= 2.157, p=.032) made a significant contribution.

Age at Intake (beta = -.030, t= —.385, p=.701) and Urban
Environment (beta = -.012, t= —.160, p=.873) were not useful
variables.

127

 

 

 

 

 

Table 16 Demographic Regression Model for Number of
Placements
R R Square Adjusted Std Error Durbin-
Square R Square Watson
.174 .030 .013 2.6024 1.801
Sum of df Mean Square F Sig
Squares
Regression 35.249 3 11.750 1.735 .162
Residual 12.850 167 .0077
Total 13.459 170
Unstand. Stand. t Sig
Coefficients Coetiicient
8 Std Err. Beta
Constant 4.073 3.063 1.330 .185
Age at Intake - .0075 .195 -.030 -.385 .701
Single Parent .918 .426 .167 2.157 .032
Urban Environ. - .0081 .510 -.012 -.160 .873

 

Model 2, shown in Table 17,

history variables.

Offenses, Adjudications,

and Intake from Home.

is composed of offense

It includes Status Offenses, Felony

There is no

conclusive reason for concern about the correlation of its

residuals (Durbin-Watson

1.755,

1 1.679,

1.1 1.788, p= ~05)!

but it performs worse than Model 1 in explaining the

variance of Number of Placements (Adjusted R Square = -.003)

and also fails to show significance (p= .483).

The

contributions of the separate variables within this model

have little value for understanding number of placements.

Status Offenses shows a beta of -.O62

felony offenses beta = -.025

Adjudications Beta = .121

(t= -.789, p=.431),

(t= -e326’ p=e745),

128

(t=1.551,,p=.123),

and Intake from

Home beta = .055 (t=.694, p=.489).

Table 17 Offense and Placement History Regression Model for

Number of Placements

 

R R Square Adjusted Std Error Durbin-

 

 

R Square Watson
.143 .021 -.003 2.6232 1.755
Sum of df Mean Square F Sig
Squares
Regression 23.952 4 5.988 .870 .483
Residual 1 142.270 166 6.881
Total 1166.222
Unstand. Stand. t Sig
Coefficients Coefficient
B Std Err. Beta
Constant 2.981 .593 5.029 .000
Status Offenses - .229 .291 - .062 - .789 .431
Felony Offenses - .0027 .083 - .025 - .326 .745
Adjudications .141 .091 .121 1.551 .123
Intake from Home .361 .520 .055 .694 .489

 

Model 3 (Table 18) focuses on the clinical
characteristics of the youth, and includes Family Tensions
(stressor), Personal Investment and Ventilation (coping
strategies), and Family Functioning. Correlation of
residuals presents no significant risk with a Durbin-Watson
statistic of 1.806 (1 1.679, u 1.788, p=.05), but the model
explains only about 1% of the variance in number of
placements (Adjusted R Square = .010), and is not
significant (p=.226). Family Functioning is the individual

variable in this block that performs the best as a predictor

129

(beta= .166, t=2.143, p=.034). Family Tensions (beta= .052,
t= .650, p=.517), Personal Investment (beta= .018, t= .228,
p= .820), and Ventilation (beta= .082, t= 1.002, p=.318) all

serve as poor predictors within this combination.

Table 18 Clinical Characteristics Regression Model for

Number of Placements

 

 

R R Square Adjusted Std Error Durbin-

 

 

R Square Watson
.183 .033 .010 2.6060 1.806
Sum of (If Mean Square F Sig
Squares

Regression 38.869 4 9.717 1.431 .226
Residual 1127.353 166 6.791

Total 1166.222 170

Unstand. Stand. 1 Sig

Coefficients Coefficient
8 Std Err. Beta

Constant .0082 1.644 .050 .960
Family Tensions .0064 .099 .052 .650 .517
Personal Investment .0056 .246 .018 .228 .820
Ventilation .266 .266 .082 1.002 .318
Family Functioning .681 .318 .166 2.143 .034

 

Model 4 (Table 19) enters the family characteristics of
the youth as a block, and includes Single Parent Family,
Family Tensions, and Family Functioning. Its Durbin-Watson

statistic is acceptable at 1.835 (1 1.693, u 1.774, p .05),

130

and the model achieves significance (p=.012), while
explaining about 5% of the variance (Adjusted R Square =
.046). Thus, family characteristics for this sample are a
better predictor of number of placements than are
demographics or offense history. Family Tensions is the
least productive element of this block (beta = .025, t=.331,
p=.741), while Family Functioning (beta = .309, t=2.411, p=
.017) and Single Parent Family (beta = .414, t=2.525,
p=.013) better explain number of placements in this

construction.

Table 19 Family Characteristics Regression Model for Number

of Placements

 

R R Square Adjusted Std Error Durbin-

 

 

R Square Watson
.251 .063 .046 2.5581 1.835
Sum of df Mean Square F Sig
Squares
Regression 73.413 3 24.471 3.740 .012
Residual 1092.810 167 6.544
Total 1166.222 170
Unstand. Stand. t Sig
Coefficients Coefficient
B Std Err. Beta
Constant .297 1.121 .265 .791
Single Parent 1.041 .414 .190 2.515 .013
Family Tensions .0307 .093 .025 331 .741

Family Functioning .744 .309 .102 2.411 .017

 

131

Model 5 (Table 20) uses an ecological set of
independent variables in an effort to explain the variance
in number of placements. As noted above, this ecological
set uses Age at Intake, Single Parent Family, Family
Functioning, and Adjudications, to represent successive
levels of the youth’s environment. Its Durbin-Watson
statistic is 1.791, which indicates no significant problem
with correlation of adjacent residuals (1 1.679, u 1.788,
,p.05). It is significant at the p=.006 level, and explains
about 6% of the variance of number of placements (Adjusted R
Square = .061). Although its explanatory value is quite
low, it still performs as a better predictor than any of the
other models constructed for this dependent variable. In
this model, Single Parent Family and Family Functioning have
about equal value as predictors (beta = .198, t=2.606,
p=.010; beta = .191, t= 2.543, p= .012, respectively), while
Adjudications (beta = .142, t=1.907, p=.058) and age at

intake (beta = —.015, t= -.201, p=.841) perform less well.

132

Table 20 Ecological Regression Model for Number of
Placements

 

R R Square Adjusted Std Error Durbin-

 

 

R Square Watson
.288 .083 .061 2.5384 1.791
Sum of df Mean Square F Sig
Squares
Regression 96.621 4 24.155 3.749 .006
Residual 1069.601 166 6.443
Total 1166.222 170
Unstand. Stand. t Sig
Coefficients Coefficient
B Std Err. Beta
Constant .476 3.229 .147 .883
Age at Intake - .0038 .189 - .015 - .201 .841
Single Parent 1.087 .417 .195 2.606 .010
Adjudications .166 .087 .142 1 .907 .058
Family Functioning .780 .307 .191 2.543 .012

 

Due to the better performance of the ecological model
(Model 5), as compared with the other four models, in
explaining variance while meeting an appropriate level of
significance, Hypothesis 5 is supported. The results of the

models for number of placements are summarized in Table 21.

133

Table 21 Summary of Regression Models for Number of
Placements

 

Model R R Square Adj. R Square Significance
Demographic .174 .030 .013 .162
Offense History .143 .021 - .003 .483
Clinical Characteristics .183 .033 .010 .226
Family Characteristics .251 .063 .046 .012
Ecological .288 .083 .061 .006

 

This conclusion does not imply that this model is the best
predictor when considering all possible constructions, or
that it would prove superior to alternatives that use

different measures or independent variables.

Hypothesis 6: An ecological set of variables including Age
at Intake, Felony Offenses, use of a Ventilation coping
strategy, and Nomber of Prior Placements, will better
explain length of stay in the most recent placement, than
will blocks that contain demographics, offense history,
clinical characteristics, family characteristics, or

placement history alone.

This hypothesis is intended to test the relative value
of specified models as they compare to one another. They do
not represent an exhaustive examination of alternative
explanations for Length of Stay, but are built on specific
rationales, as described below.

Age at Intake is included in the ecological model

B4

because placement data indicate that youth are typically
placed at about 15 to 16 years old, and the juvenile justice
laws at the time of these placements specified an endpoint
for confinement at age 19. Release of serious felony
offenders is subject to rigorous review by a State Board
charged with protecting public safety, and the behavior of
such offenders in placement would be likely to cause
sanctions and longer periods of confinement. Use of a
Ventilation coping strategy would appear to be more
troublesome in a structured program, as it would serve to
disrupt smooth agency operation and possibly antagonize
staff members. 'Number of Prior Placements is used as an
indicator of the youth's history in placement, and allows
inclusion of this history without inducing a singularity
problem.

Model 6 (Table 22) tests the relative value of
demographics as they explain Length of Stay. It includes
Age at Intake, Single Parent Family type, and Urban
Environment. The Durbin-Watson statistic, at 1.213, shows
problems with autocorrelation of errors (1 1.693, u 1.774, p
.05). A decision was made not to correct for this problem,
because all models compared in this section of the analysis
evidence similar values. This is not considered a problem
for interpretation of these results because the focus is
only on comparison of the models with each other, not for
purposes of generalization to other samples, or to uncover

the best possible model of all alternatives. The

BS

demographic model explains about 6% of the variance
(Adjusted R Square = .061), and shows significance (p .004).
Within this model, Age at Intake is the best predictor of
Length of Stay (beta -.274, t= -3.621, p= .000), while
Single Parent Family (beta -.080, t= -1.057, p= .292) and
Urban Environment (beta .094, t= 1.251, p= .213) contribute

notably less.

Table 22 Demographic Regression Model for Length of Stay

 

R R Square Adjusted Std Error Durbin-

 

 

R Square Watson
.278 .077 .061 6.2967 1.213
Sum of df Mean Square F Sig
Squares
Regression 553.210 3 184.403 4.651 .004
Residual 6621.207 167 39.648
Total 7174.418 170
Unstand. Stand. 1 Sig
Coefficient Coefficient
8 Std Err. Beta
Constant 41.365 7.410 5.582 .000
Ageat Intake - 1.711 .472 - .274 - 3.621 .000
Single Parent - 1.088 1.030 - .080 - 1.057 .292
Urban Environ. 1.543 1.233 .094 1.251 .213

 

Model 7 (Table 23) enters variables that represent
offense history, including Status Offenses, Felony Offenses,
and Adjudications. Its Durbin—Watson value is 1.271 (1
1.693, H 1.744, p= .05). It explains about 3% of the

variance (Adjusted R Square = .027), but does not achieve

no

significance (p= .056). Only Felony Offenses adds

explanation within this model (beta = -.185, t= -2.442, p=
.016), while Adjudications (beta = -.O46, t= -.605, p=.546),
and Status Offenses (beta = -.109, t=-1.429, p=.155) have no

appreciable explanatory value.

Table 23 Offense History Regression Model for Length of

 

 

 

Stay
R R Square Adjusted Std Error Durbin-
R Square Waton
.210 .044 .027 6.4081 1.271
Sum of df Mean Square F Sig
Squares
Regression 316.676 3 105.559 2.571 .056
Residual 6857.741 167 41.064
Total 7174.418 170
Unstand. Stand. t Sig
Coefficient Coefficient
8 Std Err. Beta
Constant 17.671 1.051 16.820 .000
Status Offenses - 1.006 .704 - .109 - 1.429 .155
Felony Offenses - .491 .201 - .185 - 2.442 .016
Adjudications - .134 .221 - .046 - .605 .546

 

Model 8 (Table 24) examines the contribution of
clinical characteristics to an understanding of Length of
Stay. It includes Family Tensions, Personal Investment,
Ventilation, and Family Functioning. The Durbin-Watson

statistic has a value of 1.201 (l 1.679, u 1.788, p .05).

137

The model explains about 1% of the variance (Adjusted R
Square = -.011), and is not significant (p= .712). None of
the individual independent variables emerge as valuable
predictors of Length of Stay (Family Functioning beta = —
.052, t= —.665, p= .507; Ventilation beta = .001, t= .014,
Ip= .989; Personal Investment beta = .076, t= .959, p= .339;

and Family Tensions beta = -.079, t= -.983, p= .327).

Table 24 Clinical Characteristics Regression Model for
Length of Stay

 

R RSquare Adjusted Std Error Durbin-

 

 

R Square Waton
.112 .013 - .011 6.5324 1.202
Sum of df Mean Square F Sig
Squares
Regression 90.786 4 22.697 .532 .712
Residual 7083.632 166 46.672
Total 7174.418 170
Unstand. Stand. t Sig
Coefficient Coefficient
B Std Err. Beta
Constant 16.294 4.121 3.953 .000
Family Tensions - .244 .248 - .079 - .983 .327
Personal lnvestrn. .591 .616 .076 .959 .339
Ventilation .0093 .666 .001 .014 .989
Family Functioning - .529 .797 - .052 - .665 .507

 

Model 9 (Table 25) utilizes family characteristics,
including Single Parent Family Type, Family Tensions, and

Family Functioning, as predictors of Length of Stay. The

138

Durbin-Watson value is 1.173 (1 1.693, u 1.774, p .05).
Family Characteristics explain 1% of the variance in Length
of Stay (Adjusted R Square = -.010, and the model is not
significant (p: .711). In the structure of this model,

neither independent variable is a good predictor of Length

of Stay (Family Functioning beta = —.044, t= -.562, p= .575;
Family Tensions beta = —.071, t= -.917, p= .360; and Single
Parent Family beta = -.034, t= -.434, p= .665).

Table 25 Family Characteristics Regression Model for Length
of Stay

R R Square Adjusted Std Error Durbin-

 

 

 

R Square Waton
.090 .008 - .010 6.5276 1.173
Sum of df Mean Square F Sig
Squares
Regression 58.679 3 19.560 .459 .71 1
Residual 7115.738 167 42.609
Total 7174.418 170
Unstand. Stand. t Sig
Coefiicient Coefficient
8 Std Err. Beta
Constant 18.200 2.859 6.365 .000
Single Parent - .459 1.057 - .034 - .434 .665
Family Tensions - .217 .237 - .071 - .917 .360
Family Functioning - .441 .788 - .044 - .562 .575

 

Model 10 (Table 26) applies placement history as a
predictor of Length of Stay. The model has a Durbin-Watson

value of 1.183 (1 1.706, u 1.760, p .05), explains less than

139

one percent of the variance (Adjusted R Square = .006), and
is insignificant (p= .221). Prior Placements (beta = —.109,
t= -1.425, p= .156) and Intake from Home (beta = .080, t=
1.047, p= .297) are not good predictors as established in

this model.

Table 26 Placement History Regression Model for Length of
Stay

 

R R Square Adjusted Std Error Durbin-

 

 

R Square Watson
.134 .018 .006 6.4764 1.183
Sum of df Mean Square F Sig
Squares
Regression 127.971 2 63.986 1 .526 .221
Residual 7046.446 168 41.943
Total 7174.418 170
Unstand. Stand. t Sig
Coefficient Coefficient
B Std Err. Beta
Constant 15.002 1.209 12.407 .000
Intake from Home 1.314 1.255 .080 1.047 .297
Prior Placements - .270 .190 - .109 - 1.425 .156

 

Model 11 (Table 27) employs the ecological construction
of variables described in the opening of this section. It
uses Age at Intake, Family Functioning, Felony Offenses, and
Prior Placements to explain Length of Stay. This model
performs better than the other models tested against it, and

lends support to Hypothesis 6. Only the demographic model

140

(Model 6) provides a worthwhile comparison, as the other
four models performed so poorly. Results of the regression
models for length of stay are summarized in Table 28. The
Durbin-Watson statistic for Model 11 is 1.261 (1 1.679, u
1.788, p .05). It explains a little over 7% of the variance
(Adjusted R Square = .074), and is significant (p= .002).
Only Age at Intake achieves significance for its individual

beta (-.230, t=-3.032, p= .003) within the model. Prior

Placements (beta = -.113, t= -1.514, p= .132), Felony
Offenses (beta = —.131, t= -1.715, p= .088), and Family
Functioning (beta = -.050, t= -.660, p= .510) did not

contribute as much explanation to this model.

Table 27 Ecological Regression Model for Length of Stay

 

R R Square Adjusted Std Error Durbin-

 

 

R Square Waton
.309 .096 .074 6.2520 1.261
Sum of (If Mean Square F Sig
Squares
Regression 685.952 4 171.488 4.387 .002
Residual 6688.465 166 39.087
Total 7174.418 170
Unstand. Stand. t Sig
Coefficient Coefficient
8 Std Err. Beta
Constant 40.902 7.669 5.334 .000
Age at Intake - 1.436 .474 - .230 - 3.032 .003
Family Functioning - .505 .764 - .050 - .660 .510
Felony Offenses - .347 .202 - .131 - 1.715 .088

PriorPlaoements - .281 .186 - .113 - 1.514 .132

 

141

Table 28 Summary of Regression Models for Length of Stay

 

Model R R Square Adj. R Square Significance
Demographic .278 .077 .061 .004
Offense History .210 .044 .027 .056
Clinical Characteristics .112 .013 - .011 .712
Family Characteristics .090 .008 - .010 .711
Placement History .134 .018 .006 .221
Ecological .309 .096 .074 .006

 

Schcnatic of Correlations

Research Question 3: Which sets of variables best explain
out-of—home placements for African-American male
delinquents?

This question was also addressed by the construction of
a schematic presentation of the observed relationship among
the variables studied (Figure 3). Although not intended to
impart causality, this diagram is offered as a graphic
representation of the overall linkages of the study
variables accounting for their temporal and theoretical
order. The diagram displays the linkages among the study
variables based on their significant bivariate correlations,
which are reported in Table 15 above. Total Out-of-Home
Placements is the outcome variable. Path analysis was not
attempted because the model was constructed post-hoc, which
would be a violation of accepted rules for specification

(Asher 1983). Here, interest is focused only on observed

142

relationships among the variables.

In this schematic, exogenous variables include Age at
Intake, Single Parent Family type, Urban Environment, and
Intake from Home. The first level of endogenous variables
includes Felony Offenses, Adjudications, and Prior
Placements as elements of offense and placement history.

The clinical characteristics form the next level. They
include Family Functioning, Family Tensions, Personal
Investment, and Ventilation. Successful Program Completion,
Length of Stay, and Successful Release are measured at the
end of placement and are considered as program variables in
the next level. Aftercare Placement Home is treated
separately from Total Out-of—Home Placements for purposes of
clarity, although placement in a family setting would mean
that no additional out-of—home placement would be added to
the prior and Boysville placements. No direct connection
from Prior Placements to Total Out-of-Home Placements is
shown. This linkage was omitted in the model because the
computation of Total Out-of—Home Placements includes Prior
Placements. The correlation is, therefore, meaningless due
to lack of singularity.

The associations among pairs of variables depicted here
have already been presented in the section on correlations
above. An informative use of this diagram, therefore
involves analysis of the linkages that involve more than two
variables. This allows a preliminary identification of

potential paths that may be investigated further.

143

mcoHumHouuou mo monoxCHg oomzonm cmumEorum m ousoam

 

      

NF. . 25:

88¢

8.. genes, 87 9.35

SSE accesom mm _ . i

.mnwxasm 1" .rfii :Em
' ...

V A {5582. . .coEcEsfi

86: 530.28 I «on .285“. as... :85
38.585 .8... 55me no..- Enact
26595011! enema. .aoSooam

.82.

 

In order to maintain a recursive presentation,
connections among variables which are located in the same
columns of the diagram required decisions about
directionality of the linkages. While this is clearly
incompatible with a purely correlational approach, the
purpose of this diagram is to move toward a better informed
causal understanding. With this goal in mind, the

rationales for the linkages as shown are offered here.

Age at Intake is negatively correlated with Single
Parent Family type as another exogenous variable. At the
exogenous level, a two headed arrow is used to show that no
direction of influence may be imparted.

The clinical characteristics also have effects among
themselves. Order is assigned based on the assumptions that
Family Functioning shapes the Personal Investment coping
strategies available to the youth, and that the stressor
Family Tensions affects the use of Ventilation coping
strategies. Because Personal Investment coping strategies
are linked directly with Family Functioning, Personal
Investment is used as an input to Ventilation, rather than
ordering the association in the opposite direction. These
orderings of the associations are generally supported by
theory in the form of the Resiliency Model of Family Stress,
Adjustment, and Adaptation (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1991).

The program level variables also have mutual influence.

At this level the decision was made to establish Length of

145

Stay as the input to Successful Release because there is an
accumulation of time, and presumably effort during that
time, that produces the award of an approved release from
the program.

While extensive quantitative analysis of path models is
possible, the interest of this study requires only that the
linkage effects are interpreted. The interested reader will
be able to compute the path coefficients for direct and
indirect effects, relative values of compound paths, and the
effect of residuals, from the correlation matrix shown in
Table 15, using formulae suggested by authors such as Asher
(1983). Compound linkages involving Total Out-of—Home
Placements are considered below. All interpretations of
linkages are based on the direction of connection as shown
in the diagram.

One compound connection traces the linkage from Age at
Intake through Felony Offenses, Length of Stay, Successful
Release, and Aftercare Placement Home to Total Out-of—Home
Placements. Age at Intake also has a negative direct
negative effect on Length of Stay, which exerts a direct
effect on Total Out-of-Home Placements. According to these
connections, Age at Intake increases the likelihood of
Felony Offenses, but these offenses positively influence
Aftercare Placement Home through Length of Stay and
Successful Release, which, in turn, decreases Total Out-of-
Home Placements. This set of linkages shows that although

being older at intake is associated with a higher number of

M6

recorded criminal offenses, the duration of confinement is
not extended by such a criminal history. The inverse effect
of age may simply be due to legal limits on confinement for
youth who have reached age 19. Longer stays in placement,
however, are more likely to be rewarded with an approved
release and an attendant return to a home setting, rather
than an additional out-of—home placement. Longer stays also
serve to limit the accumulation of further out-of-home
placements directly. Simply put, the youth cannot be placed
into a different setting when he is maintained in the
current one.

A second important set of linkages goes from Single
Parent Family type through Prior Placements, Family
Functioning, Personal Investment, Ventilation, and Aftercare
Placement Home, to Total Out-of—Home Placements. This
connection shows that coming from a single parent family
increases the likelihood of out-of—home placement for sample
youth. Entry into placement increases levels of family
functioning in the areas of cohesion and control, as well as
the adolescent's application of personal investment coping
strategies. Although personal investment and ventilation
coping strategies are incompatible, ventilation increases
the chances of placement at home and thereby decreases the
addition of another out-of—home placement.

Another notable linkage connects Family Tensions
through Ventilation and Aftercare Placement Home to Total

Out—of-Home Placements. Family Tensions also exerts a

M7

direct effect on Aftercare Placement Home. Although not
conceptualized as an exogenous variable, Family Tensions
represents a powerful stressor for the sample that has no
significant identified inputs. This linkage highlights the
importance of stress and coping factors in placement
decisions, even though they are not directly linked to
criminal or legal involvements.

Two other sets of connections have fewer linkages, but
are also relevant to understanding out-of—home placement.
Coming from an urban environment directly decreases the
likelihood of earning a successful release from the program,
the granting of which would increase the potential for a
home placement, instead of an out-of—home placement after
release. Coming into placement from a home setting,
however, directly increases the potential for a home
placement at the end of the program, thereby preventing an
additional out-of-home placement. These two connections
illuminate the impact of the youth’s home environment on
placement decisions, and the value of maintaining them in
home settings as a means of limiting the cycle of

confinement.

148

Chapter 6

Discussion of Results

This chapter highlights some of the significant
findings of the study. The findings are integrated with
each other and with prior knowledge using a topical
approach, explanations and implications of the findings are
presented, and additional suggestions for further research
are offered. A final section considers the limitations and

delimitations of the study.

Measurement Issues

This study supports the value of assessing the
psychometrics of published measures for application to
under-researched populations. Structured investigation of
social phenomena involves fundamental decision making about
the relative value of normative and exploratory research
(Keppel & Zedeck, 1989). Research that is focused on
comparing samples with each other or to established
standards must utilize the same measures with each of those
samples. The utility of exploratory studies, however, may
benefit from the application of particular measures that are
specifically intended to elicit in-depth information about
the sample under investigation (Jayaratne & Levy, 1979).

In this study, the instruments used by the agency were

carefully selected as measures of the variables that were

149

 

addressed in the treatment program (Grasso and Epstein,
1987), and alternative minority norms were constructed for
scoring the scales (Grasso, 1985). The purpose of these
instruments was to assess therapeutic needs within a
specified program, and to determine program outcomes. Their
use in normative research and program evaluation is,
therefore, appropriate.

As reflected in the results of the confirmatory factor
analysis, however, this study found that a homogeneous
population of African-American male delinquents lives with
different constructions of stress, coping, and family
functioning than do other samples. Accurate measurement of
these dimensions of life may require different constructs or
scales than those used for the types of samples that are
usually involved in instrument construction. Conclusions
about the behavior and systemic interaction of a sample of
human beings may be misinformed if the scales used to draw
those conclusions are based on the patterns of a
significantly different population. The inclusion of events
in a stressor inventory, for example, such as beginning
school or starting a new business, may not accurately
measure contact with stressors if the sample in question
lacks the economic resources to engage in such endeavors.

In such a case, scales that cluster events related to
poverty or limited opportunity may be more reflective of the
actual experience of the participants. This study

highlights the crucial value of construct validity in such

um

investigations.

Psychometric assessment of existing scales provides the
researcher with an opportunity to improve the construct
validity of the measures, especially for the intended
application. Such a step is worthwhile in building a base
of empirical findings. This assertion finds concurrence in
the work of other researchers (Singleton, Straits, Straits,

& McAllister 1988).

Intake Characteristics of the Sample

Demographic characteristics of the sample provided
support for prior knowledge about delinquent samples. The
average age of sample youth was close to that of national
male delinquent samples generated by prior research
(Sickmund 1998). The predominance of single parent families
in the research sample fit earlier characterizations of
delinquent samples (Whittaker, Tripodi, & Grasso, 1993).

The finding that most of the sample youth came from urban
environments is similarly without surprise (McCubbin, Kapp,
& Thompson, 1993).

Offense, adjudication, and placement history data,
however, raise important points for consideration. It is
striking that 80% of these youth came into the most recent
placement directly from their family homes. These youth may
have been under some form of supervision, but were clearly

not placed out of the home immediately prior to intake,

15]

despite a history of multiple serious offenses and prior
placements. Their average of almost three felony offenses,
with less than one status offense, would indicate that they
should be considered to be high—risk candidates for
recidivism. The fact that they averaged almost three
adjudications and over two prior placements would also seem
to indicate that previous attempts at control had not been
effective. These findings raise questions about the
criteria and process involved in placement decisions, and
highlight an experience of repetitive placements that may
only serve to perpetuate itself. Ashford and LeCroy (1993)
offered a decision-making tree for placement decisions.
Their protocol and similar guides would be useful targets
for empirical testing as predictors of successful placement.
If placement decisions are improved, it may be possible to
break the cycle of multiple placements for African-American
male delinquents.

Results regarding the experience of stressors and use
of coping strategies provide information not previously
available from other sources. These results indicate that
sample youth are about evenly split in their preferences for
prosocial coping behaviors as found in the personal
investment factor, and the acting-out behaviors contained in
the ventilation factor. Such results are, perhaps,
counterintuitive when one thinks about the stereotypic
juvenile delinquent, so additional investigation is

warranted. It is possible that preferences for either

152

 

coping strategy are the result of factors such as
temperament, behavioral modeling, or exposure to particular
life experiences. These variables are either unmeasured in
the current study, or are only partially represented by the
scales that were derived from the items of the published
instruments. These findings cannot be readily compared to
those for a similar sample, in part because of the decision
modify the published scales, but primarily due to the dearth
of quantitative research on stress and coping of African-
American delinquents.

Family functioning of these youth was midrange on
average, with little dispersion. As noted in Chapter 3, the
vast body of research on delinquency indicates a significant
incidence of low cohesion and low control in the families of
delinquent youth (Sheilds & Clarke, 1995; Towberman, 1994;
Vazroni & Flannery, 1997). Although there is no definitive
reason to expect that characteristics common to families of
delinquents are also common to families of youth placed out-
of—the-home, these results should be approached with
caution.

This study calls attention to the need to apply
improved measures of family functioning variables to
research with minority samples. The family functioning
scale was constructed in the interest of improved
psychometric properties. As described in Chapter 5, this
was accomplished for this sample, but further improvement in

validity may be necessary. This may occur through the

153

application of scales that consist of different items.
Measurement of family cohesion and parental control with
increased sensitivity would probably yield more
interpretable results.

In a study not bound by existing data, the selection of
measures could consider instruments such as the McMaster
Family Assessment Device (Epstein, Baldwin, & Bishop, 1983),
or the Family Environment Scale (Moos & Moos, 1981). Both
of these instruments contain specific subscales that measure
cohesion and behavioral control. A worthwhile endeavor may
be to factor-analyze the cohesion and control items from
both of these instruments in order to specify a new
combination for further testing with African-American
samples. Regardless, instrument selection may be eased by
consulting psychometric assessments of existing instruments,
such as that conducted by Tutty (1995), who evaluated the
relative strengths and weaknesses of several common family

measures .

Delinquent Behavior and Out-of—Home Placement

Intuition implies that there is a linkage between
delinquent behavior and subsequent out-of—home placements.
The casual observer may even equate the two. Although such
an assumption may appear logical on the surface, the results
of this study emphasize a distinction between offenses and

placements. Correlations of status or felony offenses with

HM

out-of—home placements were not found. In fact, an inverse
correlation of felony offenses with length of stay was
found.

These results suggest that a range of decision making
intervenes between delinquent activity and subsequent
placement. The lack of observed correlations between
adjudication and either form of offense, as well as the
placement variables, would also indicate that other factors
influence the youth's formal entry into the juvenile justice
system. Prior research has shown that about 67% of juvenile
arrests find their way into juvenile court, and that only
another 7% are referred directly to adult criminal court,
while 25% of the cases end with police contact (Snyder,
1998). While these figures outline the proportion of
disposition of cases, they do not elucidate the operative
factors. Research targeted specifically at decision making
within the juvenile justice system would help clarify these
mechanisms.

Rather than concluding that delinquent behavior plays
little to no role in impacting out-of—home placements,
however, it is necessary to remember that the placement
variables were constructed as accumulations, and that an
additional range of mid-level misdemeanor offenses remains
unmeasured in this study. Alternative measures of these
variables may enhance understanding of the specific
connections between offending behavior and confinement.

The observed inverse association of felony offenses

155

with longer stays in placement raises additional empirical
questions. One would expect that multiple felony offenders
would be regarded by decision makers as more serious
criminals than those with fewer offenses, and, thereby,
incarcerated for relatively longer periods. The fact that
this was not found in this study points to other
alternatives. Repeat felony offenders may be more
sophisticated in manipulation, or possess greater motivation
to gain release. It is also plausible that confinement
could limit the opportunity to commit reported crimes, which
could show itself as an inverse relationship between record
of felonies and length of stay over more than one placement.
Another possibility is that the African-American youth
comprising this sample were subjected to more restrictive
treatment than their European-American counterparts, in the
form of detention and longer confinements, for less serious
offenses as noted in other research (Poe-Yamagata, 1997;

Sickmund, Snyder & Poe-Yamagata, 1995).

Expected Associations with Out-of-Home Placement

None of the variables that were expected to be
associated with accumulation of out-of—home placements
performed as expected. They include Age at Intake, Status
Offenses, Felony Offenses, Adjudications, Family Tensions,
and Ventilation.

These variables were selected for inclusion in the

um

correlational hypothesis on the bases of prior research
showing correlates of delinquency in general delinquent
samples, and consistency with the clinical expectations of
family oriented practitioners (Kelley, Loeber, Keenan, &
DeLamatre, 1996; Krohn, Stern, Thornberry, & Jang, 1992;
Nelson, 1990; Rankin & Wells, 1990, Sheilds & Clarke, 1995;
Towberman, 1994). In addition, the Strain Theory and the
Social Control Theory of delinquency contributed key
variables to this analysis. Investigations of Strain Theory
have shown that blockage from favored resources or
interference with attempts to avoid unpleasant circumstances
contribute to the formation of delinquent behavior (Elliot &
Voss, 1974; Greenberg, 1977; Agnew, 1985). Tests of Social
Control Theory have also substantiated its focus on
effective structure and accountability in the context of
emotional connections as mediators of delinquency (Bahr,
1979; Wells & Rankin, 1988). These theories contributed an
emphasis on family, community, stress, and coping variables.
The emphasis of Sub-Cultural Deviance Theory on negative
peer associations (Briar & Piliavin, 1965; Short &
Strodbeck, 1963) did not have available measures in these
data. Similarly, there was no way to include the emphasis
of Rational Choice Theory on economic forms of decision—
making by the youth (Cornish & Clarke, 1986). Together, the
included variables were intended to represent the social
system characteristics of youth who were most likely to

engage in delinquent acts, and who would be most in need of

157

intervention. By focusing this analysis on placement,
rather than delinquency, however, it has become apparent
that established correlates and theories of delinquency may
have limited utility in explaining out-of-home placement.
When focusing attention on the total accumulation of
out-of—home placements, it is possible to consider the
impact of program variables. It should be noted that
completion of treatment goals is not correlated with the
award of an approved release type. Of these two variables,
only successful program completion is negatively associated
with out-of—home placements. Therefore, practitioners may
take heart in the fact that treatment goals may be more
influential in limiting further out-of—home placements than
are administrative decisions about categorization of release
types. The type of release granted does, however, show a
meaningful association with a return to a home environment
upon termination of the program placement. No studies of
similar variables are available with which to compare these
findings. Thus, this may open up a new avenue of inquiry
and practice regarding planful release/termination from the

program and placement options.

Additional Associations with Out-of—Home Placement

The significant relationship of single parent family

type with out-of-home placements was not specified in a

158

research hypothesis, but was uncovered through correlational
analysis. This finding is consistent with early research on
delinquent families and more recent studies (Minuchin,
Montalvo, Guerney, Rosman, & Schumer, 1967; McCubbin, Kapp,
& Thompson 1993). Benson and Roehlkepartain (1993) also
found that being part of a single parent family was
associated with increased risks for out-of—home placement
under certain unidentified conditions. Identifying these
conditions is another challenge for future research.

Single parent family type may also exert indirect
influence on the total accumulation of out-of-home
placements as shown in Figure 3. It is represented as part
of a link that connects prior placements, family
functioning, and coping to aftercare placement at home.
Other available research has not specifically validated this
indirect influence, so replication of this study would be
beneficial to build further understanding about such
connections. On the basis of this study and prior research,
however, it appears that being part of a single parent
family is associated with being placed out of the home for
African-American male delinquents.

Contrary to expectations, family functioning was not
negatively correlated with accumulation of placements.
Family functioning was, instead, positively related to prior
placements. In addition to being a descriptor of families
of delinquents, low family cohesion and low parental control

have also been found to be correlates of delinquency. The

159

previous discussion about descriptors also applies to
correlates in the sense that a relationship to delinquent
behavior should not be equated with a relationship to
placement.

A possible temporal relationship of prior placements
and family functioning was depicted in Figure 3. The
diagram shows the direction of influence flowing from prior
placements to family functioning. Logic for this direction
includes a recognition of the accumulation of placements
over time as described in Chapter 5. If one accepts the
direction shown, there is an attendant possibility that
temporary removal of the youth from the family home may help
restore or induce some structural order to family
functioning. This possibility should not be construed as
support for the necessity of long-term restrictive
placements, however, as short—term respite arrangements or
milder forms of external control such as diversion programs
may be just as effective in this regard. Prior research
that compares diversion and alternative control measures to
traditional placement provides support for these approaches
as effective interventions for reduction of delinquent
behavior (Davidson, Redner, Blakely, Mitchell, & Emshoff,
1987; Northey, Primer, & Christensen, 1997).

Residence in an urban environment is not directly
associated with out-of—home placement in the present study,
but it may contribute to a chain of administrative decision

making which affects release from placement, and return to a

160

family home, thereby continuing the cycle of out—of—home
placements. These linkages are depicted in Figure 3. It is
likely that staff who make release decisions are less
inclined to send a youth back to his home community if they
believe that the community presents undue risks for
recidivism. Indeed, the author has worked in settings where
staff members made explicit statements about the futility of
working with a young man for several months and then
returning him to the same troubled neighborhood. Roscoe and
Morton (1994) found that the community in which the juvenile
lives has a stronger effect on the likelihood of involvement
in delinquency than do racial characteristics. It appears,
however, that this conclusion was drawn without full
consideration of the role of race in limiting housing
decisions and other social resources that impact the
location of residence. It should also be noted that their
research focuses on delinquent behavior (beyond felony
offenses), rather than out-of—home placement. Taken
together, however, these findings suggest that being an
African-American may influence the location of residence,
and that coming from an urban environment may contribute to
delinquent behavior and the extension of out-of—home

placements.

Other Notable Associations
The direct relationship of ventilation to aftercare

placement home may be puzzling at first blush. One might

161

expect that swearing and threatening people would be
counterproductive in an effort to have residential staff
members approve a return to home. A plausible explanation,
however, takes into account the fact that the ventilation
data refer to the time of program intake. Perhaps the youth
who demonstrates problems early in the program makes more
observable progress in treatment than his more reserved
peer, and thereby earns a release to his home environment.
The results of this study, thus, provide information about
the coping preferences of sample youth, and imply a
connection between exposure of behavioral problems and
eventual return home. The lack of specific results about
coping factors in connection to out-of-home placement,
however, should be regarded as inconclusive until work is

conducted with other samples.

Explanation of Multiple Placements

A regression approach was used to explain the total
accumulation of out-of—home placements. Models containing
blocks of variables that represent demographics, offense
history, clinical characteristics, and family
characteristics, were compared with an ecological model that
contained selected variables from each other block, or
subsystem of the youth‘s social ecology. These models were
constructed a priori, on the basis of research and practice

knowledge, and were not influenced by the correlations which

162

were obtained later. The emergence of the ecological model
as the only one with significance, as well as the highest
explanatory value, indicates its relative value over the
other models. Due to the standard regression method used in
this study, it is inappropriate to compare the relative
explanatory value of individual variables outside the
context of their own block. These characteristics of the
individual variables represent the unique contribution that
they make within that set of variables and should not be
confused with the beta values that would result from
stepwise regression methods. With the capacity of this
analysis to isolate unique contributions to variance, it is
possible to uncover the value of variables that do not show
significant or large correlations with the dependent
variable (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). This is demonstrated
in the ecological model, where single parent family type and
family functioning share about equal value as the best
individual predictors. The significance of the model that
includes family characteristics is also notable. These
results call additional attention to the potential value of
developing the measure of family functioning as a predictor
of out-of—home placement.

The performance of the ecological model in explaining
multiple out-of—home placements may be further improved with
the addition of decision-making variables. These could
include the factors that are considered by delinquency

services workers and agency intake workers when they decide

163

to place a youth, such as assessment of community risk, open
beds in residential placement, and assessment of the youth’s
family or neighborhood. Such a model would probably require

a larger sample size, in order to gain statistical power.

Explanation of Duration of Placement

A second set of regression models was used to explain
duration of the most recent out-of—home placement. These
models included variables in blocks to represent
demographics, offense history, clinical characteristics,
family characteristics, and placement history. They were
compared with an ecological model that employed variables
from each of these blocks to represent multiple levels of
the youth's social ecology.

The ecological model outperforms the demographic one
which is the only other significant model. The emergence of
the demographic model as a good predictor is noteworthy in
that these characteristics are beyond the control either of
the youth or the staff. Age at intake provides the greatest
unique contribution in the model, and it is the least likely
candidate for manipulation. The performance of the
ecological model in explaining duration of placements,
however, provides support for ecological theory. The
greatest individual predictor in the ecological model is
also age at intake. The similar performance of the age

variable in both models would indicate that it might be

164

usefully considered in an initiative to reduce
disproportionate minority confinement that focuses on agency

level placement decisions.

Delimitations and Limitations of the Study

This study focused exclusively on a homogeneous sample
of African-American male delinquents. An integral part of
the study was the decision to forego interesting comparisons
by race, in order to obtain more in-depth information about
a group of youth that existing knowledge showed to be
confined at comparatively higher rates than another group.
For related reasons, a correlational design was chosen, and
an existing dataset was employed. Each of these decisions
established boundaries around the investigation. Much like
an old wooden fence, this boundary serves to both protect
the integrity of the findings about the sample, and to
exclude opportunities for comparison.

Clearly, the limits of a naturalistic correlational
design preclude generalization of these findings beyond the
sample studied. Evidence also suggests that there may be
some significant differences between the sample and the
overall agency population in felony offense and adjudication
history. Nonetheless, it is instructive to note that most
of the youth placed at Boysville during the period of these
intakes came through an intake and assessment committee

comprised of staff members from several similar agencies.

165

To qualify for inclusion in this pool, all youth had to be
felony offenders, with similar high scores on a community
risk assessment tool. Assignment to a particular agency was
then made primarily on the basis of program openings, so it
may be that the sample youth have notable similarities to
other agency populations. Replication of this study, using
multiple measures and comparison groups could address the
research questions with greater rigor, thereby increasing
the possibilities for generalization.

In addition to demonstrating the value of an ecological
approach to understanding disproportionate minority
confinement, this study has outlined additional work for the
field. Valuable next steps in research should include
better specification of clinical measures for African-
American families, use of qualitative methods to obtain
deeper understanding of the meanings of personal and family
processes, application of an ecological approach with
comparison groups, and extension of the ecological framework
used here to include juvenile justice system factors that
may be crucial elements of the problem. Specifically,
information about formal and informal decision-making that
impacts placement decisions would be very valuable.
Interviews and ethnographic studies of decision making by
staff who work in restrictive placements may also be useful

in this regard.

166

Implications for Further Research Using Systems Dynamics

In addition to the specific suggestions for further
substantive investigation offered in the sections above, an
alternative analytic method should be considered. Clarity
regarding relationships among ecological variables could be
greatly enhanced by applying a non-recursive framework.

Such an approach would allow a means of representing
feedback in the natural systems of the participants.

Instead of having to specify a unidirectional influence
from correlational data, it is, perhaps, more meaningful to
indicate reciprocal influence among the variables that
represent levels of the youth’s social ecology. A practical
means of specifying and simulating the operation of such a
non—recursive system is found in a computer-based
orientation known as Systems Dynamics (Forrester, 1969).
Appendix B describes this approach in more detail, but it is
important to note that Systems Dynamics does a particularly
good job of specifying the complex mutual goal-seeking
action of subsystems over time (Levine, Van Sell, & Rubin,
1992).

Systems Dynamics has identified several common modes of
operation for systems, which are referred to as basic flow
processes (Cover, 1996) and are joined together as
archetypes (Brierova, 1996). These archetypes describe the
structure of the system and, based on the structure they

specify, determine the behavioral output of the model.

167

Because archetypes can streamline the construction of a
running systems dynamics model, cautions have been raised
about the risks of model misspecification that are inherent
in misapplying an archetype for the sake of simplicity
(Brierova, 1996).

Systems dynamicists often use diagrams to depict the
movement of information or energy through a system (Cover,
1996). Initial pictures of the system use loop diagrams and
more advanced versions use flow diagrams that are run on a
computer (Levine, Van Sell, & Rubin, 1992). Models are best
conceptualized on the basis of existing theory and practical
knowledge of the system, and the resulting models may be
quantified with empirical data or estimates of the values of
the parameters (Levine, 1992).

In order to advance understanding of disproportionate
minority confinement, conceptual work on the feedback
involved in the social ecology of African-American youth has
been completed and is offered here. Although the following
description requires further specification in order to be
used in an operating dynamic systems model, it serves as a
foundation for such an effort.

The problem of disproportionate minority confinement is
approached, for purposes of this example, from the
perspective of the Social Control Theory of delinquency. As
noted in the foregoing discussion, this theory is compatible
with the analyses conducted in this study. It is also

widely supported in the delinquency literature (Agnew,

168

1992). Social Control Theory emphasizes the importance of
Family Cohesion and Parental Control, which were combined
for analysis in this study as Family Functioning. The
theory holds that combinations of low Family Cohesion and
low Parental Control lead to delinquency (Agnew, 1985). For
the current effort, low levels of these characteristics will
be termed Family Fragility. Family Fragility may be
considered to be the inverse of Family Functioning as
defined in the quantitative analyses of this study.

While exercising the cautions about selection of an
archetype referred to above, it was determined that the
“fixes that fail” archetype reasonably captures the observed
dynamics of disproportionate minority confinement (Hannon &
Mattias, 1994). As a result, this structure was used in a
loop diagram, to depict the cycle of out-of—home placement
for African-American males in the juvenile justice system.
It is shown in Figure 4.

The “fixes that fail” archetype recognizes that once a
problem comes to light, a rapid solution to that problem may
be implemented (High Performance Systems, 1989). In this
context, the solution brings about the immediate desired
impact on the problem, which reduces its frequency or
severity. From a systemic perspective, this relationship of
action to problem is conceptualized as a balancing loop or
negative feedback (Levine, Van Sell, Rubin, 1992). Over
time, however, an unintended consequence of the solution may

be encountered that actually exacerbates the original

169

 

9". a"5’. EYE-w
l _.

 

we.

problem state (High Performance Systems, 1989). Systems
analysts think of such an operation as a reinforcing loop or
positive feedback (Levine, Van Sell, Rubin, 1992).

Applying this archetype to the problem of
disproportionate minority confinement, it is possible to
locate theoretical and practical systems variables within
these loops. As may be seen in Figure 4, Delinquency is
defined as the problem; Placement is seen as the fix; and
Family Fragility is the unintended consequence. Moving
along the arrow that connects Delinquency to Placement, one
may identify the beginning of the balancing loop or negative
feedback that is intended to reduce the delinquent behavior
of adolescents. The immediate impact of containment is a
reduction in opportunities for delinquent behaviors or a re-
labeling of delinquent behaviors as problems for treatment.
Regardless, Delinquency is reduced by Placement, as
indicated by the arrow from Placement to Delinquency. Such
an attempt at solving the problem, however, may feed the
need for continued or repeated placement as the use of that
solution becomes compelling and necessary to contain the
delinquency.

The other loop in the diagram connects Placement with

 

Family Fragility and then Delinquency. It represents the
reinforcing or amplifying action of Placement on Delinquency
through the unintended consequence of Family Fragility. The
loop also incorporates a delay between Placement and Family

Fragility to indicate that the impact takes time. It may

170

Problem Fix

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Placement
+
Delay
FI . I .
L00p
Family
Fragility
+
Unintended
Consequence

Figure 4 Loop Diagram Showing Unintended Consequence of Placement

171

happen over the duration of a single stay in placement or be
multiplied over the course of repeated cycles as indicated
by the return arrow that connects Delinquency to Placement.

By embellishing this simple diagram, it is possible to
add additional feedback structure. For example, one might
identify additional consequences of placement, or other
inputs to delinquency, such as undesirable peer
relationships that echo throughout the system. This simple
diagram may become very complex with such additions, so it
is important for the analyst to start simply, add only
required structure, and build a foundation for the model
that is understandable but realistic (Levine, Van Sell, &
Rubin, 1992).

Another means of representing this complexity is the
flow diagram, a simple example of which is found in Figure
5. The flow diagram represents variables that accumulate as
stocks, and places them in boxes (Cover, 1996). Actions
that add to or drain the accumulations are depicted as
attendant flows (the objects with the spigots that are
attached to the stocks). These flows are one way of
depicting the time it takes for stock variables to
accumulate or dissipate. Circles are used to represent
several other necessary aspects of the system, including
algebraic and dimensional convertors. They may also be used

to represent other accumulating variables that are not

FD

currently of primary interest. Arrows are used to connect
the stocks to flows to indicate the impact of variables on
each other.

Figure 5 is a very simple flow diagram that is
analogous to the loop diagram in Figure 4. It focuses on
the delinquency sector of what could become a full model of
disproportionate minority confinement. Delinquency is
represented as a stock, with Increase and Decrease in
Delinquency shown as flows. Both Placement and Family
Fragility are shown as convertors for purposes of this
simplistic presentation, but would be included as stocks

with their own flows in a fully developed model.

In this diagram, the balancing loop is shown in the
connection from Delinquency to Placement, and from Placement
to Decrease in Delinquency. Because Decrease is the outflow
of Delinquency, it is shown as the channel for reducing the
frequency or severity of the problem. The closed feedback
loop indicates that this process is repetitive. This is the
same process that is represented in the balancing loop of
Figure 4.

In addition, Delinquency is thought to be driving its
own production, as indicated by the feedback arrow to the
inflow Increase. As delinquent thinking and acting
accumulates, it is likely to continue to grow unless some
intervention occurs. Another input to Increase is provided

by Family Fragility. Family Fragility is, in turn,

173

heightened over time by Placement. This is depicted by the
arrow with the hash marks to indicate a delay. The arrows
that connect Placement to Family Fragility to Increase, and
the feedback of Delinquency to its own Increase represent

the reinforcing loop also shown in Figure 4.

 

 

O

 

?

ImmflLDd

?

 

 

FBMlILFTaQWV ' Placement

 

Figure 5 Simple Flow Diagram of Delinquency, Placement, and
Family Fragility

Although these two figures are alternate methods of
representing the same structure, the flow diagram may be
used as a graphic interface for computer simulation of the
system. The question marks inside the symbols of Figure 5
indicate that this model has not yet been quantified with
data or estimates. In fact, it is far from ready for such

quantification in its current state, as the structure must

 

be verified and more detail must be introduced.

This brief description of the possibilities for
application of dynamic systems modeling is meant to

illuminate the value of conceptualizing and investigating

W4

disproportionate minority confinement as a problem that
involves feedback in the social ecology of the African-

American adolescent male.

Implications for Juvenile Justice Policy

The present bifurcation in application of resources for
incarceration and diversion has polarized the juvenile
justice community as described in Chapter 1. While control
of criminal behavior is necessary to protect public safety,
it is clear that the present form of confinement, which has
been built on two-hundred years of practice, is not
sufficient for either habilitating offenders or protecting
society in the long term. The cycle of repeated removal
from community and return home for participants in this
study and nationally, indicates that a more integrative
approach might be more effective.

It would be possible to integrate control with change
cooperatively rather than competitively through expansion of
intensive community supervision programs that also provide
developmental experiences for young men. In conjunction
with electronic or human supervision, educational and
experiential programs that develop interpersonal and
economic connections are likely to improve the chances that
a young man will remain productive in his community.

The finding regarding the association of single parent

families with an accumulation of out-of—home placements

175

indicates that there is still a need for improved family
policy initiatives. Resources for families should not just
be economic, but interpersonal as well, because it is at the
relational level that factors such as cohesion and
internalized control are fostered. Specifically, increased
opportunities to exchange social support in informal or
formal networks should be exploited.

This study also calls attention to the decision-making
processes used to determine who goes into placement and how
long they stay. The overall discrepancy between proportions
of African-American and European-American youth in placement
is a compelling reason to examine the bases for decisions to
confine youth. Such a reason is compounded, however, when
one realizes that coming into a placement from home rather
than another placement is more likely to lead to a return
home than is the successful completion of a year long
treatment program. In the same regard, age plays a greater
role in determining length of stay than does residence in an
urban environment, or personal experience of stress and use
of c0ping strategies. Indeed, a record of felony offenses
matters less in accumulating out-of—home placements than
does membership in a single parent family. Guidelines for
placement decisions that equalize the risks and
opportunities for African-American and European-American
youth are greatly needed. At a minimum, these guidelines
should include level of offense, clinical assessment of

needs, and the risk factors associated with recidivism.

FM

Implications for Juvenile Justice Practice Intervention

This study raises the value of prevention programs
aimed at youth well below the age of 15, at which point the
likelihood of placement reaches its peak. Older youth also
accumulate a record of multiple offenses, even when they
have been involved in more than one out-of—home placement.
For these reasons, effective intervention programs might be
developed to meet the needs of younger children, thereby
providing alternatives to the experiences that produce
delinquent behavior.

Findings that establish an inverse association between
higher numbers of prior placements and longer lengths of
stay call attention to the possibility that youth learn
behaviors in placements that help them get out of the next
one sooner. While this is not troubling by itself, it also
appears that these same youth do not necessarily complete
treatment goals, or earn favorable releases. Under these
circumstances, it may be important to develop
counterbalances to a practice effect by utilizing innovative
treatment approaches or varied treatment settings.

The higher explanatory values of the ecological models
for number of placements and length of stay, indicate that
intervention should be directed toward multiple levels of
the youth’s social ecology in order to decrease the
incidence of minority placement. The current efforts of

many agencies to include the family of the youth in

177

intervention efforts could be expanded. Such expansion
might focus on aspects of the youth’s community, especially
if that is an urban environment. A systemic approach would
allow integration of efforts to improve functioning at

multiple levels of the youth’s social ecology.

Conclusion F~

This study applied an ecological framework to enhance

 

understanding of the problem of disproportionate minority
confinement. Particular analyses described the '
characteristics of a unique group of young men, examined the
relationship of several factors at multiple levels of their
social systems, and tested explanations for different forms
of confinement. Results of the analyses further suggest
that a systemic approach holds promise for explaining
observed phenomena, identifying new areas for investigation,
and developing innovative analytic tools for directed study, as

so that we might further our understanding of and correct

the occurrence of disproportionate minority confinement.

 

1% s:

178

APPENDICES

179

 

APPENDIX A

J
- -5- In?

 

I80

Appendix A

Correlation matrix Showing Correction for Attenuation

This appendix contains Table 29, which presents the
corrrelations among study variables as corrected for
attenuation. This procedure applies a formula wherein the
observed correlation is divided by the product of the square
roots of the reliabilities of the correlated variables.

It represents a method of showing what the correlations
would be without the effect of measurement error. A
comparison of Table 15 (observed correlations) with Table 29
(correlations corrected for attenuation) allows the reader
to discern the effect of measurement error on the
associations. The only correlations that display changes
from Table 15 to Table 29 are those that involve variables
drawn from the clinical measures. These variables were
derived from scales obtained by questionnaires and have
computed reliabilities. All other variables were reported
directly as counts, and are, therefore, assumed to have

perfect reliabilities.

181

 

A- 'IA'E— 1r.

 

 

. Fmo. -

2228. eased
been. as

ovo.

o3.

c3332

ea. 30. .

no. - es. .

so. so. .

. 8Q .
8225 820:0

2%“. mans

Ro. -

moo.

.mm... -

Foo.

omF.

9.8:.
oon

woo.

moo. -

moo.

«so. -

Foo.

so:

8229..

no. to. gas.
mass“.
.8: so. . 5E
so; so. - asses?
cacao
ms. L8 >53
@358
as. we. - mass
3%.
ma. - to. as:
so. 31. Se:
Ewan
- .5 - 22m
- oo<
22$
22...... 02

 

comumscouum mow cofluowuuoo mcflzocm xfluumz coaumaonuoo

ow magma

I82

oNF.

voo.

._.o_.. -

m2:

mmo.

ooo. -

moo.

:mom. .

omF.

228°.—
oer

x woo. woo. omo. - moo. . mmo. . .oo... Foo. -
x o3. mmo. . «No. - moo. mmo. . .om_.. omo. .
3o. . . mmo. - moo. - var. . .mm... 3;. «NF. . moo.
omo. - mmo. ooo. . o3. - m3. . .oop. . vmo. . mmo. -
.uow. - 3o. - moo. omo. . 3o. . mmo. . moo. omo.
Lt. - omo. - .mmv. - moo. - mmo. omo. mmo. . sumo. -
.omm. ooo. . Em. . mmo. . mmo. . moo. - e2. - omo. .
mmo. 3o. omo. . mmo. . mmo. «mo. moo. - ooo.
omo. mmo. - mmo. . m3. . o3. mmo. mow. - omo.
mesa: 820:0 8228 9.55 E28

55 1.83.5.2 some 3% 23: so: 235 a?

.lu.ocoov mm manna

gee—n.
.80...

8:82.".
ho .352

28:
2882

353.
.2885

5885

.2mmmoozw

mew
.0 593

9.2805“.
sea“.

coomsco>

.5533.
.2033

183

 

 

£555

184

. x .Lom; ooo. .mmF: .ooo- 2:. m3: omo. EB.

9:52....

- 3o: omo.. .mot. .5: .oh. m5. omo. 895:2

8.6...

- :mmm. omo. . .voF. 5o. .Nom. moo. 28.22

38.2".

- omo. - :mov. 2 v. - or _.. ooo. . 3.0.885

Egan

- 2o: mmo.- ooo. o2. - .23805

Em

- E. - to. so. .0 523

388%“.

- 8.. - .2. gen”.

- :mom. . c8m_oco>

Eofimgs

. .9588
£58K acsoi 28: 83mm semen. Em oo 2388:“. E2532.
32. .8252 98.22 $085 8826 59.3 225“. 83:55 .2851

.Au.ucouv mm magma

APPENDIX B

185

 

 

Appendix B
Systans Dynamics

Systems dynamics grew out of general systems theory and
cybernetics. It was invented in the late 1950’s by Jay
Forrester at MIT (Forrester, 1969; Cover, 1996). He was
among the first to develop a method of representing complex
human systems in mathematical and computer-based terms. The
original tenets of systems dynamics have survived a
translation into more accessible applications that may be
run on personal computers. Systems dynamics stands as a
causal approach to utilizing time-series data. It is a
means of representing networks of dynamic feedback
structures that may be applied with an heuristic or
empirical approach (Levine, Van Sell, & Rubin, 1992). These
feedback structures are based on positive feedback loops
which amplify behaviors, and negative feedback loops which
reduce or restore levels of behaviors. Combinations of
positive and negative feedback loops in the same system
serve to produce variations in behavior over time.

Although it requires careful attention to model
building, the systems dynamics approach allows considerable
advantage over correlational techniques through its ability
to handle mutual causality among variables. In this way, it
is superior to path analysis, and provides an effective
means of modeling non-recursive causal structures. There is
a considerable body of knowledge regarding generic

structures and patterns of system behavior to inform the

186

 

 

‘63“

construction of models (Hannon & Mathias, 1994; Breierova,
1996).

Dynamic system models are represented by flow diagrams
that depict the relationships among variables. These
diagrams include Stocks (variables that accumulate or
dissipate over time such as “inventory”), Flows (action
variables that lead to the accumulation or dissipation of
the stocks such as “production” or “shipments”), Auxiliaries
(variables that are used to algebraically combine other
components of the system such as “desired inventory”),
Constants (the parts of the system that do not change over
the course of the analysis such as “workforce”), and Arrows
(the connections among variables that indicate the direction
of influences on each other). Once a diagram is produced,
the variables are quantified, either with empirical data or
estimated values, and the system is “run” on the computer to
determine its behavior. This output appears graphically,
over a selected time period, and is compared to the known
behavior of the system to assess the accuracy of the
structure represented in the diagram. It is possible to
test the behavior of the system by using extreme values for
the parameters of the system. After the model's behavior
adequately matches what is known about the observed system,
then it is possible to proceed with simulations of various
intervention approaches to uncover their impacts on the
system at various points in time and inform decision making.

The systems dynamics approach is particularly

187

".3

 

‘to.

 

well-suited to understanding many cyclical problems due to
its ability to deal with several interacting variables over
time and allow simulation of changes in the system. Systems
dynamics seeks the explicit or implicit goals of the system
in an attempt to identify conflicting sets of structure and
other difficulties associated with a particular problem. It
also characteristically incorporates cybernetic feedback
among variables in order to follow the flow of information
and energy through the system and realistically reflect
causal structures. Lags in perception and delays in
decision-making can be represented as a means of
incorporating the time involved in systemic processes and
understanding the differential effects of the same type of
action at alternative points in time. Non-linear, as well
as linear relationships among variables are recognized, to
more accurately reflect impacts on each other. In short,
systems dynamics views the action of systems in process
rather than event terms, and recalls the analogy of the
movie in comparison to the snapshot.

Even in investigations where full time-series data are
not available for all relevant variables, a heuristic model
may be constructed and quantified with a combination of
observed and estimated values, to capture the qualitative
behavior of the system (Levine, 1992). The model may then
be used to test various interventions in subsequent

simulations.

188

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

 

1!:—

189

 

OFFICE OF
RESEARCH
AND
GRADUATE
STUDIES

m Committee on
Research involving
Home Subjects
Midiigan State University
36 Administration Building
East lmsing, Michigan
48824-1046
SthS-Zlao

FAX: St ”353-2975
”.mm/wihs
E-Mail: wihsansuedu

If! Montana State UnivefSlly
DEA is lflSMMWI Diversity.
were in Action.

USU is an affirmative-action.

MICHIGAN STATE

 

 

UNIVERSITY

April 28, 2000

TO: Rena HAROLD
254 Baker Hall

RE: IRB# 00-226 CATEGORYz1-E
APPROVAL DATE: April 28, 2000

TITLE: MULTIPLE PLACMENTS AND THE SOCIAL ECOLOGY OF
AFRICAN-AMERICAN MALE DELINQUENTS

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects‘ (UCRIHS) review of this

project is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human

subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are

appropriate. Therefore, the UCRIHS approved this project.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval
date shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green
renewal form. A maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to
continue a project beyond that time need to submit it again for a complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects. prior
to initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal. please use the green renewal
form. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your written
request to the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and referencing the project's IRB#
and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments.
consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMSICHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work.
notify UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects. complaints, etc.) involving
human subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating
greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and
approved.

If we can be of further assistance. please contact us at 517 355-2180 or via email:
UCRlHS@pilot.msu.edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms are located on the web:
htth/wwwmsuedu/unitlvprgs/UCRIHS/

Sincerely,

CC: John Mooradian
10596 Wellington Dr.
Plymouth, MI 48170

 

 

:- p .1" “ff-n
I
I

fir

 

REFERENCES

 

191

List of References

Additon, H.S., Deardorff, N.R. (1919). That child.
The Survey, 33(April-Sept),l85.

 

Agnew, R. (1985). A revised strain theory of
delinquency. Social Forces, 64,151-167.

Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain
theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30, 47-87.

Aneshensel, C.S., Rutter, C.M., Lachenbruch, P.A.
(1991). Social structure, stress, and mental health:
competing conceptual models. American Sociological Review,
56(April),166-178.

Ashford, J.B. (1988). Protecting the interests of
juveniles on aftercare/ parole. Children and Youth Services
Review, 18(7), 637-654.

Bahr, S. (1979). Family determinants and effects of
deviance. In Burr, W., Hill, R., Nye, F.I., & I. Reiss,
(Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family. New York:
Free Press.

Barth, R.P. (1989). Theories guiding home-based
intensive family preservation services. In Kinney, J.,
Haapala, D., & C. Booth. (Eds.), Keeping families
together: the homebuilders model. (pp. 91-113). Hawthorne,
NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Barton, C., & Alexander, J.F. (1981). Functional
family therapy. In Gurman, A.S.& D.P. Kniskern (Eds.),
Handbook of family therapy. New York: Brunner Mazel.

Barton, W.H., & Butts, J.A. (1990). Viable options:
intensive supervision programs for juvenile delinquents.
Crime and Delinquency. 36(2), 238-256.

Beavers, R. (1985). Manual of beavers-timberlawn
family evaluation scale and family style evaluation.
Dallas, TX: Southwest Family Institute.

Bednar, R.L., Burlingame, G.M., & K.S. Masters,

(1988). Systems of family treatment: substance or
semantics. Annual Review of Psychology, 34, 401-434.

192

 

J .
win.”

 

it, 1

Benson, P.L., & Roehlkepartain, E.C. (1993). Single-
parent families. Search Institute Source, 11(2), 1-3.

Bilchuk, S. (1998). A juvenile justice system for the
let century. Crime and Delinquency, 44(1), 89-101.

Briar, S., Piliavin, I. (1965). Delinquency,
situational inducements and commitment to conformity.
Social Problems, 13, 35-45.

Brierova, L. (1996). Mistakes and misunderstandings:
use of generic structures and reality of stocks and flows.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Systems Dynamics in
Education Project.

Brinson, J.A. (1994). The incarceration of black
males: unsettled questions. Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation, 20(3-4), 85-95.

 

Bourduin, C.M. (1995). Multi-systemic treatment of
serious juvenile offenders: Long-term prevention of
criminality and violence. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 63(4), 569-578.

Bruno, F. (1957). Trends in social work 1874-1956: A
history based on the proceedings of the national conference
on charities and corrections. New York: Columbia University
Press.

Burton, 0., Foy, D.W., Bwanausi, C., & J. Johnson,
(1994). The relationship between traumatic exposure, family
dysfunction, and post traumatic stress symptoms in male
juvenile delinquents. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 7(1),
83-93.

Butler, K. (1997). The anatomy of resilience. The
Family Therapy Networker, March/April, 22-31.

Carpenter, M. (1969) (original 1851). Reformatory
schools for the children of the perishing and dangerous
classes and for juvenile offenders. New York: Kelly.

Chamberlain, P., & Rosicky, J.G. (1995). The
effectiveness of family therapy in the treatment of
adolescents with conduct disorders and delinquency. Journal
of Marital and Family Therapy, 21(4), 441-459.

Cloward, R.A., Ohlin, L.E. (1960). Delinquency and
opportunity New York: Free Press.

 

193

 

 

Coffeen, E.L. (1910). National conference on the

education of backward, truant, and delinquent children. The

Survey, 24(April-Sept), 488.

 

Cohen, A. (1955). Delinquent boys. New York: Free
Press.

Colon, F. (1981). Family ties and child placement.
In Sinanoglu, P.A. & A.N. Maluccio, (Eds.), Parents of

 

children in placement: perspectives and programs. New York:
Child Welfare League of America.

Constantine, L.L. (1986). Family paradigms: the
practice of theory in family therapy. New York: The
Guilford Press.

Cornish, D.B., & Clarke, R.V. (1986). The reasoning
criminal: rational-choice perspectives on offending. New
York: Springer-Verlag.

Coughlin, D.D., Maloney, D.M., Baron, R.L., Dahir, J.,
Daly, D.L., Daly, P.B., Fixsen, D.L., Phillips, E.L., &
Thomas, D.L. (1982). Implementing the community-based
teaching family model at boys town.

Cover, J. (1996). Introduction to systems dynamics .
Reston, VA: Powersim Press.

Cousins, L. (1997). Toward a socio-cultural context
for understanding violence and disruption in black urban
schools and communities. Journal of Sociology and Social
Welfare, 24(2), 41-63.

Davidson, W.S., Redner, R., Blakely, C.H., Mitchell,
C.M., & Emshoff, J.G. (1987). Diversion of juvenile
offenders: an experimental comparison. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(1), 68-75.

de Anda, D., Javidi, M., Jefford, S., Komorowski, R., &
Yanez, R. (1991). Stress and coping in adolescence: a
comparative study of pregnant adolescents and substance
abusing adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 13,
171-182.

Deutsch, L.J. (1989). Early life events as
discriminators of socialized and undersocialized
delinquents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 17(5),
541-551.

194

 

 

Eamon, M.K. (1994). Institutionalizing children and
adolescents in private psychiatric hospitals. Social Work,
39(5), 588—594.

Elliott, D., & Voss, H. (1974). Delinquency and
dropout Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Ellwood, C.A. (1910). The instability of the family
as a cause of child dependence and delinquency. The Survey,
23(April-Sept), 889.

Empey, L. (1982). American delinquency: its meanipg
and construction. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.

 

Epstein, N., & Bishop, 8. (1983). The mcmaster family
assessment device. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,
9, 171-180.

Eron, L., Walder, L., & Lefkowitz, M. (1971). Learning
of aggression in children. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

Ferdinand, T.N. (1991). History overtakes the
juvenile justice system. Crime and Delinquency, 37(2),
204-224.

Fredman, N., & Sherman, R. (1987). Handbook of
Measurements for Marriage and Family Therapy New York:
Brunner-Mazel.

Forrester, J.W. (1969). Urban dynamics. Portland, OR.
Productivity Press.

 

Grasso, A.J. (1985). Boysville Research Manual.
Clinton, MI. Boysville of Michigan.

Green, R.G., & Vosler, N.R. (1992). Issues in the
assessment of family practice: An empirical study. gpyrnal
of Social Service Research, 15(3-4), 1-19.

Greenberg, D. (1977). Delinquency and the age
structure of society. Contemporary Crises 1, 66-86.

Goldberg, D., & Hodes, M. (1992). The poison of
racism and the self-poisoning of adolescents. Journal of
Family Therapy, 14, 51-67.

Gorman-Smith, D., Tolan, P.H., Zelli, A., & Huesmann,
L.R. (1996). The relation of family functioning to
violence among inner-city youths. Journal of Family
Psychology, 10(2), 115-129.

 

195

 

 

 

Grasso, A.J., Epstein, I., & Tripodi, T. (1988).
Agency-based research utilization in a residential childcare
setting. Administration in Social Work, 12, 61-80.

Hatchett, G. (1998). Why we can't wait: the juvenile
court in the new millennium. Crime and Delinquency,
44(1), 83-88.

Henggler, S.W., Melton, G.B., & Smith. L.A. (1992).
Family preservation using multi-systemic treatment: an
effective alternative to incarcerating serious juvenile
offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, _
60(6), 953-961. I”:

High Performance Systems (1989). Manual for Stella
II. Hanover, N.H. High Performance Systems, Inc.

 

Hoffman, J.P., & Su, 8.8. (1997). The conditional ;‘
effects of stress on delinquency and drug use: a strain '
theory assessment of sex differences. Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency, 34(1), 46-78.

Howell, J.C. (1998). NCCD's survey of juvenile
detention and correctional facilities. Crime and
Delinquency. 44(1), 102-109.

 

Hsia, H. M., & Hamparian, D. (1998).
Disproportionate minority confinement: 1997 update.
Juvenile Justice Bulletin. September 1988.

Hunter, J.B., & Hamilton, M.A. (1992). Manual
CFA.BAS -- A program in basica to do confirmatory factor
analysis. East Lansing, MI. Michigan State University.

Jayaratne, S., & Levy, R.L. (1979). Empirical
Clinical Practice. New York: Columbia University Press.

 

 

Johnson, R.E., Marcos, A.C., & Bohr, S. (1987). The
role of peers in the complex etiology of adolescent drug
use. Criminology, 25, 323-340.

 

 

Johnson, W.W. (1996). Transcarceration and social
control policy: the 1980's and beyond. Crime and
Delinquency, 42(1), 114-124.

 

Kantor, D., & Lehr, W. (1990). Inside the family.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

196

 

Kapp, S.A., Schwartz, I.M., & Epstein, I. (1994).
Adult imprisonment of males released from residential
childcare: a longitudinal study. Residential Treatment for
Children and Youth, 12(2), 19-36.

Kelley, B.T., Loeber, R., Keenan, K., & DeLamatre, M.
(19 ). Developmental pathways in boys’ disruptive behavior.
Juvenile Justice Bulletin, December, 1997.

Keppel, G., & Zedeck, S. (1989). Data Analysis for
Research Designs: Analysis of Variance and Multiple
Regression/Correlation Approaches. New York: W.H. Freeman &
Co.

King, A.E.O. (1997). Understanding violence among
young african-american males: an afrocentric perspective.
Journal of Black Studies, 28(1), 79-96.

Kinney, J., Haapala, D., Booth, C., & Leavitt, S.
(1989). The homebuilders model. In Kinney, J., Haapala, D.
& C. Booth (Eds.), Keeping families together: the
homebuilders model. (pp. 37-67). Hawthorne, N.Y: Aldine de

Gruyter.

 

Krohn, M.D., Stern, S.B., Thornberry, T.P., & Jang,
S.J. (1992). The measurement of family process variables:
the effect of adolescent and parent perceptions of family
life on delinquent behavior. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 8(3), 287-315.

 

Krona, D. (1980). Parents as treatment partners in
residential care. Child Welfare, 59, 91-96.

Lab, S.P., & Whitehead, J.T. (1988). An analysis of
juvenile correctional treatment. Crime and Delinquency,
34(1), 60-83.

Lane, W.D. (1915). At the bar of childhood. The
Survey, 35(October l915-March 1916): 570.

Lattimore, F.L. (1910). Childrens' institutions and
the accident problem. The Survey, 24(April-Sept), 801.

Leiby, J. (1978). A history of social welfare and
social work in the united states. New York: Columbia
University Press.

Len, M., (1988). Parental discipline and criminal
deviance. Marriage and Family Review. 12(1-2): 103-112.

197

 

A?!
r"

aH‘W all,

 

 

Levine, R.L. (1992). An introduction to qualitative
dynamics. In Levine, R.L. & H. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Analysis
of pynamic Psychological Systems Volume 1. (pp. 267-330).
New York. Plenum Press.

Levine, R.L., Van Sell, M., Rubin, B., (1992). System
dynamics and the analysis of feedback processes in social
science and behavioral systems. In Levine, R.L. & H.
Fitzgerald (Eds.), Analysis of Dynamic Psychological Systems
Volume 1. (pp. 145-266). New York. Plenum Press.

McConkey-Radetzki, N. (1987). The development of a
family therapy program within a residential treatment
setting: phases, issues, and strategies. Journal of
strategic and systemic therapies, 6, 16-28.

McCubbin, H.I., Kapp, S.A, & Thompson, A.I. (1993).
Monitoring family system functioning, family and adolescent
coping in the context of residential treatment: implications
for program management, practice innovation, and research.
In Grasso, A.J. & I. Epstein (Eds.), Information systems in
child, youth, and family agencies: planning, implementation,
and service enhancement. (pp. 155-174). New York:
Haworth.

 

McCubbin, M.A., & McCubbin, H.I. (1991). Family
stress theory and assessment: the resiliency model of family
stress, adjustment, and adaptation. In McCubbin, H.I. &
J.M. Patterson (Eds.), Family assessment inventories for
research and practice. (pp.3-34). Madison, WI: University
of Wisconsin.

McCubbin, H.I., & Patterson, J.M. (1991). ACOPE:
adolescent-coping orientation for problem experiences. In mi
McCubbin, H.I. & J.M. Patterson (Eds.), Family assessment =
inventories for research and practice. (pp.235-254).
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.

McCubbin, H.I., Patterson, J.M, Bauman, E., & Harris,
L.H. (1981). Adolescent - Family Inventory of Life Events
and Changes, Family inventories St. Paul, MN: Family
Social Science.

 

‘11".

McCubbin, H.I., & Patterson, J.M. (1991). A-FILE:
adolescent-family inventory of life events and changes. In
McCubbin, H.I. & J.M. Patterson (Eds.) Family assessment
inventories for research and practice. (pp.101-112).
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.

198

McGaha, J., & Fournier, D.G. (1988). Juvenile justice
and the family: a systems approach to family assessment.
Deviance and the Family. New York: Haworth.

McGarrell, E.F. (1993). Trends in racial
disproportionality in juvenile court processing: 1985-1989.
(Special Issue: reinventing juvenile justice - research
directions) Crime and Delinquency, 39(1), 29-48.

Merton, R. (1938). Social structure and anomie.
American Sociological Review, 3, 672-682.

Millgram, N.A. (1989). Children under stress. In
Chadwick, T.H. & M. Herson (Eds.), Handbook of child
psychopathology New York: Plenum.

 

Minuchin, S., Montalvo, B., Guerney, B.G., Rosman,
E.L., & Schumer, F. (1967). Families of the slums: an
exploration of their structure and treatment. New York:
Basic Books.

Montgomery, J.B. (1909). Proceedings of the conference
on the care of dependent children held at washington d.c..
january 25, 26, 1909. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office.

 

Mooradian, J., & Grasso, A.J. (1993). The use of an
agency-based information system in structural family therapy
treatment. Child and Youth Services 16(1), 49-74.

Moos, R.H., & Moos, 8.8. (1981). Family environment
scale manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.

 

 

Nelson, K. (1990). Family-based services for juvenile
offenders. Children and Youth Services. 12, 193-212.

Northey, W.F., Primer, V., Christensen, M.S. (1997).
Promoting justice in the delivery of services to juvenile
delinquents: the ecosystemic natural wrap-around model.
Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 14, 1, 5-22.

Nye, F.I. (1958). Family relationships and delinquent
behavior. New York: John Wiley.

Office of Children and Youth Services (1988). Families
First Guidelines Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Social
Services.

 

199

 

 

 

Olson, D.H., Portner, J., & Bell, R. (1982). FACES
II: Family adaptability_and cohesion evaluation scales. In
Olson, D.H., McCubbin, H.I., Barnes, H., Larsen, A., Muxen,
M., & M. Wilson (Eds.), Family inventories. (pp. 5-24).
St. Paul, MN: Family Social Science, University of
Minnesota.

Olson, D.H., Tiesel, J. (1991). FACES II: linear
scoring & interpretation. St. Paul, MN. Family Social
Science, University of Minnesota.

Oppat, S. (1998). New maxey director focuses on
improvement. Ann Arbor News. July 5, 1998. B-1, B-3.

Patterson, G.R. (1983). Stress: a change agent for
family process. In Garmezy, N., & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stressz
coping, and development in children. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pearlin, L.I. (1989). The sociological study of
stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 30, 241-256.

Perosa, L.M, & Perosa, S.L. (1990). The use of
biploar item format for FACES III: A reconsideration.
Jouranl of Marital and Family Therapy, 16(2), 187-199.

Pierce, B.K. (1869). A half century with delinquents
or the new york house of refuge and its times. New York: D.
Appleton & Co.

Platt, (1977). The child savers: The invention of
delinquency. Chicago, IL: Chicago Press.

 

Pumphrey, R., Pumphrey, M. (1961). The heritage of
american social work. New York: Columbia University Press.

 

Rankin, J.B., & Wells, L.E. (1990). The effect of
parental attachments and direct controls on delinquency.
Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency. 27(2), 140-
165.

Rosella, J.D. (1993). Toward an understanding of the
health status of black adolescents: an application of the
stress-coping framework. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric
Nursing. 16(4), 193-205.

Russell, C.B., & Rigby, L.M. (1906). The making of
the criminal. New York: MacMillan and Co.

 

200

 

 

‘% 1-

Samuels, S.K., & Sikorsky, S. (1990). Clinical
Evaluations of School-Aged Children: A Structured Approach
to the Diagnosis of Child and Adolescent Mental Disorders.
Sarasota, FL. Professional Resource Exchange.

Schiele, J.H. (1997). An afrocentric perspective on
social welfare philosophy and policy. Journal of Sociology
and Social Welfare, 24(2), 21-39.

Shadish, W.R., Montgomery, L.M., Wilson, P, Wilson,
M.R., Bright, 1., & Okwumabua, T. (1988). Effects of
family and marital psychotherapies: a meta-analysis.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Ppychology, 61, 992-
1002.

Shields, 6., & Clark, R.D. (1995). Family correlates
of delinquency: cohesion and adaptability. Journal of
Sociology and Social Welfare. 22(2), 93-106.

Short, J.F. , & Strodbeck, F.L. (1963). The response
of gang leaders to status threats: An observation on group
process and delinquent behavior American Journal of
Sociology, 68(5), 571-579.

 

Sickmund, M., Snyder, H.N., & Poe-Yamagata, E.
(1995). Juvenile offenders and victims: a national report.
Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Justice Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Sickmund, M., Snyder, H.N., & Poe-Yamagata, E.
(1997). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1997 update on
violence. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of
Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.

Snyder, H.N. (1998). Juvenile arrests 1997. Juvenile
Justice Bulletin,_December, 1998.

Snyder, H.N. (1999). Minorities in the juvenile
justice system. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, December, 1999.

Spaccarelli, S. (1997). Psychological correlates of
male sexual aggression in a chronic delinquent sample.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24(1), 71-95.

Steiner, H., Garcia, I.G., & Matthews, Z. (1997).
Post traumatic stress disorder in incarcerated juvenile
delinquents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(3), 357-359.

 

201

 

Stern, M., & Zevon, M.A. (1990). Stress, coping, and
family environment: the adolescent's response to naturally
occuring stressors. Journal of Adolescent Research, 5(3),
290—305.

Stiffman, A.R., Dore, P., & Cunningham, R.M. (1996).
Violent behavior in adolescents and young adults: a person
and environment model. Journal of Child and Family Studies.
5(4), 487-501.

Sutphen, R.D., Thyer, B.A., & Kurtz, D.P. (1995).
Multisystemic treatment for high-risk juvenile offenders.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 39(4), 327-334.

 

Sutton, J.R. (1988). Stubborn Children Berkeley, CA: 2
University of California Press.

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1996). Using
Multivariate Statistics New York: HarperCollins

 

Tate, D.C., Reppucci, N., Dickon, B., & Mulvey, E.F.
(1995). Violent juvenile delinquents: treatment
effectiveness and implication for future action. American
Psychologist, 50(9), 777-781.

 

Towberman, D.B. (1994). Psychosocial antecedents of
chronic delinquency. Young VictimsL Young Offenders, 151-
164.

Turner, J.R., Wheaton, B., & Lloyd, D.A. (1995). The
epidemiology of social stress. American Sociological
Review, 60(April), 104-125.

Tutty, L.M. (1995). Theoretical and practical issues
in selecting a measure of family functioning. Research on
Social Work Practice, 5, 1, 80-106.

‘5 3.1.1!" -‘ End-8'1

Vaux, A., & Ruggiero, M. (1983). Stressful life
change and delinquent behavior. American Journal of .
Community Psychology, 11(2), 169-183. ‘

 

 

Vazronyi, A., & Flannery, D.J. (1997). Early
adolescent delinquent behaviors: association with family and
school domains. Journal of Early Adolescence, 17(3), 271-
293.

Weiss, H.B. (1990). Beyond parens patriae: building

policies and programs to care for our own and others’
children. Children and Youth Services Review, 12, 269:284.

202

Wells, L.E., & Rankin, J.H. (1988). Direct parental
controls and delinquency. Criminology, 26, 256-285.

Wenz-Gross, M., Siperstein, G.N., Untch, A.S., &
Widaman, K.F. (1997). Stress, social support, and
adjustment of adolescents in middle school. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 17(2), 129-151.

 

Whittaker, J.K. (1979). Caring for troubled children.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Whittaker, J.K., Tripodi, T., Grasso, A.J. (1993).
Youth and family characteristics, treatment histories, and
service outcomes: some preliminary findings from the
boysville research program. In Grasso, A.J. & I. Epstein
(Eds.), Information systems in child, youth, and family
agencies:p1anning, implementation, and service enhancement.
(pp. 139-154). New York: Haworth.

Wolfgang, M.E., Figlio, R.M., & Sellin, T. (1972).
Delinquency in a birth cohort. Chicago, IL: Unversity of
Chicago Press.

Woods, L.J. (1988). Home-based family therapy.
Social Work, 33(3), 211-214.

 

Young, T.M., Dore, M.M., & Pappenfort, D.M. (1989).
Trends in residential group care: 1966-1981. In Balcerzak,
E.A. (Ed.), Group care of children: Transitions toward the
year 2000. Washington, D.C.: Child Welfare League of
America.

 

203

 

TTTTT

ll'l'llllllllllmllllllll

   

9455