s .2. .-
.x :. f .2

 

 

7
X".

. fig

. .flunuw. .
Edam: a

as

’3‘

Jab.
.
Mandi...

£33.?

:
1‘
.I [W'Sww
. o. 535')». K
fiifiunfl»
:3th
, l‘fl'

.‘;g; c A! _
mg! {2‘

Q

a” u
1!:

J? \. tithufimnmpw End“.

 

. . 4 L z.
1.: innit.
. 1 _ ' “ I- 5‘ .. .

"Phi... 33 .~
3.. . A

flmvfif

THESIS

2008

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

STAFF ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS ABOUT FAMILY
INVOLVEMENT OF DELINQUENT CHILDREN IN
RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS

presented by

Tohoro Francis Akakpo

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph.D. degree in Social Work

 

 

flax/5. @W‘Wfifi“

Major Professovr’s Signature

2/72”} 0?)
T I
Date

 

MSU is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity employer

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:IProj/Acc&Pres/CIRCIDateDue.indd

STAFF ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS ABOUT FAMILY
INVOLVEMENT OF DELINQUENT CHILDREN IN
RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS

By

Tohoro Francis Akakpo

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILISOPHY

School of Social Work
2008

ABSTRACT

STAFF ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS ABOUT FAMILY INVOLVEMENT OF
DELINQUENT CHILDREN IN RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS

By

Tohoro Francis Akakpo

This project is an exploratory study using a convenience sample of 51 employees
of a mid-sized, Mid-West residential treatment facility for court-referred delinquent
children. The study utilizes a mixed-methods approach which consists of both
quantitative and qualitative elements and enables a comprehensive understanding of staff
attitudes and beliefs about family involvement with delinquent children in the
participating agency. Descriptive data shows that the mean age of the participants is 36
years (SD = 10.6) with the range 22 to 57 years of age. The majority of the participants
were Caucasian (72%) with nearly statistically insignificant representation of other ethnic
groups. The sample was also dominated by male staff (68.6%) with a fair representation
of female staff members.

Overall, the findings suggest that staff members support family involvement. It
seems clear that the staff recognized a link between a child’s return home and the
activities designed to involve families during the child’s placement. The findings also
indicate that family involvement is not viewed as important if the delinquent child is not
planning to return to the parental home.

As expected, the correlational analysis indicates staff members who have positive
beliefs about the youths’ families are also those who support family involvement. The

correlation between negative beliefs about families and support of family involvement is

statistically insignificant, however. The correlational analysis does not support the
expected variation of support for family involvement across the staff age groups.

The One-way Analysis of Variances (AN OVA) suggests there were differences in
the support of family involvement of direct care staff and administrative and clinical staff
(including social workers and family therapists). However, there was no difference
between administrative staff and clinicians. In addition, the ANOVA analyses of
demographic factors (education, age, gender, and marital status) are statistically
insignificant.

This study offers suggestions for further research and outlines implications for

policy and social work practice.

Copy Right by
TOHOR FRANCIS AKAKPO
2008

DEDICATION

I dedicate this work to my family for their unflinching support and encouragement

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The completion of this project would not have been possible without the
multiple supports and encouragements I enjoyed from friends, family and the
faculty and staff of the Michigan State University School of Social Work. Ellen E.
Whipple, Ph.D., an expert in clinical practice and quantitative research methods,
served as my Committee Chair. Dr. Whipple is a model of excellence. Her
patience and reassurance saw me through my long-dreamed goal of achieving a
doctorate degree which seemed unattainable from the beginning. Dr. Whipple has
spent countless hours reviewing my work with a fine-toothed comb and providing
invaluable feedback from start to the end. She worked with me tirelessly in
choosing the measures and guiding me through the theoretical framework of the
study. In addition to the academic support, Dr. Whipple was always there to
provide moral support even when I felt as if the heavens were tumbling down on
me, especially the numerous times when my computer crashed and lost substantial
data Dr. Whipple would reassure me by sharing her own experiences of tech-
nology breakdowns and recoveries. I am very grateful for her constant support
and encouragement.

To Rena Harold, Ph.D., I am grateful for her acceptance to serve as a
member of my guidance committee and, subsequently, my dissertation committee.
Despite her multiple tasks as an administrator, a professor and a researcher, as
well as chairing or sitting on a number of dissertation committees, Dr. Harold was
always available with short notice to listen and to provide advice. She provided

great support and encouragement throughout my experience as a doctoral student

vi

at the Michigan State University School of Social Work. Dr. Harold went beyond
the proverbial extra mile to meet with me, at times and locations that were more
to my convenience than hers, to provide guidance during the earliest stages of this
project. In particular, Dr. Harold helped to narrow the subject area in order to
commensurate with my background and experience. In short, she helped make
this project a meaningful extension of both my career and my education.

To Gary Anderson, Ph.D., Director of the Michigan State University
School of Social Work, I am grateful for the substantial direction and support of
my work that he offered to me throughout my matriculation at the school. Dr.
Anderson gave me the opportunity to serve my research internship under his
direction with the assistance of Margaret Whalen, Ph.D. He raised thoughtful
questions during the presentation of the proposal for this project that contributed
to a much improved final product.

Charles Corley, Ph.D., at the Michigan State University School of
Criminal Justice was instrumental in locating the participating agency of this
study. Dr. Corley, an expert on the Juvenile Justice System, shared his knowledge
of the system and helped me formulate my research questions. Dr. Corley gave up
much of his personal time to meet with me — whether in his office, at coffee
shops, after church services, or around the grill in his backyard. Even when Dr.
Corley was on a sabbatical leave, he was readily available to go over my tran-
scripts and offer his advice. Afterwards, Dr. Corley would say, “Now take this to
Ellen, she is the boss.” Our non-traditional advising sessions provided extra-

ordinary mentoring, to say the least.

vii

I would also like to thank my doctoral cohort for the friendship, support,
sharing of educational materials and peer counseling. I could have not done it
without your encouragement. Thank you, the cohort of 2003.

Sir Isaac Newton once said, “If I have seen farther it is by standing on the
shoulders of giants.” I could not have come to the United States — let alone earn
two masters degrees and enter the doctoral program in two of the finest, high-
achieving institutions of higher learning — without the support of my family
members in Togo and Ghana. Most encouraging is my uncle, Maurice Aissah
Agbetra, M.D., former Minister of Education and Health of the Republic of Togo
and the current President of the University of Kara, Togo and Professor of
Medicine at the University of Lorne, Togo. Uncle Maurice, I have made it!

Further, I am indebted to Highfields, Inc. of Michigan for the opportunity
to conduct this study at their site. Thank you to Mr. Brian Philson who approved
the collection of data from the agency. I am grateful to Ms. Mary Sprague who
assisted in staff recruitment and questionnaire distribution. Additionally, Ms.
Sprague collected the completed questionnaires in sealed envelopes and
scheduled the focus group sessions.

Lastly, I am grateful to the participants who trusted me and took the risk to
share their personal experiences with me, especially during the focus groups

sessions. For without them, this project would not have come to actualization.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES...... .................................................................................................... xii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiii
KEY TO ABREVIATIONS. . . . . . .................................................................................... xiv
Chapter 1: Introduction and Problem Statement .......................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem ................................................................................. 6

1.3 Purpose of the Research ................................................................................. 10

1.4 Theoretical Framework .................................................................................. 11

1.5 Significance of the Study ............................................................................... 14

1.6 Definition of Terms ........................................................................................ 17
Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................ 19
2.1 What is the Juvenile Justice System? ............................................................. 19

2.2a History of Residential Facilities for Juvenile Delinquents ............................ 20
2.2b Residential Facilities Today ........................................................................... 25

2.3 Juvenile Justice Population ............................................................................ 26

2.4 Types of Juvenile Offenses ............................................................................ 29

2.5 Processing Juvenile offenders ........................................................................ 31

2.6 Adult Criminal Justice System versus Juvenile Justice System .................... 34

2.7 The Swing of the Pendulum Between Rehabilitation and Retribution ......... 34

2.8 Restorative Justice and Impact on Practice .................................................... 38

2.9 Child-Centered Not Family-Centered Treatment .......................................... 41
2.10 Importance of Family Involvement ............................................................... 43

2.11 Family Involvement and Delinquency ........................................................... 46
Chapter 3: Methodology .................................................................................................. 54
3.1 Overview of Research Method: Mixed-Methods ......................................... 54

3.2 Research Procedures ...................................................................................... 57

3.3 Agency Setting and Programs ........................................................................ 59

3.4 Subject Population and Sample selection ...................................................... 65

3.5 Potential Risks and Safeguarding Confidentiality of Participants ................. 65

3.6 Potential Benefits .......................................................................................... 66

3.7 Research Questions and Hypotheses ............................................................. 67

3.8a Instrumentation for Quantitative Methods ..................................................... 68

A. Attitudes Toward Reunification .............................................................. 69

B. Beliefs about Families ............................................................................. 70

C. Support for Family Involvement Scale ................................................... 70

D. Advantages of Family Involvement Scale .............................................. 71

ix

3.8b
3.9

Chapter 4:

4.1

4.2

4.33
4.3b
4.3c
4.3d
4.3c

4.4a

4.4b

Chapter 5:
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4a
5.4b
5.4c
5.4d
5.4c
5.5
5.6

E. Disadvantages of Family Involvement Scale .......................................... 71

F. Demographics: About You and Your Job ............................................... 71
Instrumentation for Qualitative Methods ....................................................... 72
Data Analysis Procedures for Quantitative and Qualitative Methods ........... 73
Results ........................................................................................................... 76
Description of the Sample .............................................................................. 76
Test of Hypotheses ......................................................................................... 80
Support for Family Reunification with Children under 18 Years of Age ..... 81
Relationship Between Support for Reunification and F arnily Involvement ..81
Beliefs about Families and Support for Family Involvement ........................ 82
Category of Professionals and Attitudes Toward Family Involvement ......... 83
Socio-demographic Characteristics and Attitudes Toward Family
Involvement ................................................................................................... 84
Results of Focus Groups Sessions ................................................................. 86
A. Training and Preparation to Work with Children and Families .............. 87
B. Staff Beliefs about Family Involvement as an Essential
Component of Treatment ....................................................................... 88
C. Issues Surrounding Family Involvement ............................................... 90
D. Agency’s Position on Family Involvement ............................................ 92
E. Additional Comments ............................................................................. 95
Document Review ......................................................................................... 95
Discussion, Implications, Limitations and Conclusion ............................. 97
Discussion ...................................................................................................... 97
Summary of the Study .................................................................................. 99
Limitations of the Study .............................................................................. 103
Implication for Social Work Practice .......................................................... 105
Theoretical Implication for Social Work Practice ....................................... 105
Implications for Policy ................................................................................ 107
Implications for Social Work Education ...................................................... 108
Implications for Future Research ................................................................. 109
Suggestions for the Participating Agency .................................................... 1 1 1
Conclusion ................................................................................................... 112

Appendix A:

Appendix B:

Appendix C:

Appendix D:

Appendix E:

Appendix F:
Appendix G:

References: ..

Michigan State University Institutional Review Board

(IRB) Approval ............................................................................. 116
Letter of Recruitment to the Agency .......................................... 1 18
Staff Attitudes and Beliefs about Family Involvement

Consent Survey Form .................................................................. 120
Direct Care Staff Focus Group Interview Consent Form ........ 123

Staff Attitudes and Beliefs about Family Involvement

and Reunification Survey ............................................................ 126
Focus Groups Exercise Instructions and Questions ................. 137
Glossary of Juvenile Justice Terminology... ............................. 139
. ......................................................................................................... 142

xi

Table 1:

Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5:

Table 6:

Table 7:

Table 8:

LIST OF TABLES

Age Grouping of Respondents (N = 51) .......................................................... 76
Demographic Characteristics by Employee Classification (N = 51) ............... 77
Level of Education by Employee Classification (N = 51) ............................... 78
Number of Years in Human Services and at Current Agency (N = 50) .......... 79

Correlations Between Support for Family Involvement and Beliefs

(N=51) ............................................................................................................ 83

Categories of Professionals and Their Attitudes Toward Family
Involvement (n = 49) ....................................................................................... 84

Correlations of Socio-demographic Characteristics and Family
Involvement ..................................................................................................... 85

AN OVA- Demographic Characteristics and Support for Involvement
(N =5 1) .............................................................................................................. 86

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure l: Psychosocial Risk Factor Model ........................................................................ 28
Figure 2: The Balanced and Restorative Justice Approach ............................................... 40
Figure 3: Services and Programs Offered at the Agency ................................................... 61

xiii

AN OVA

CASSP

FFT

GGI

IEPs

ISP

JCCA

JJDPA

MST

NCASA

NCMHJJ

NIMH

SED

SPSS

YOC

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS

A One—Way Analysis of Variance

Child and Adolescent Services System Program
Functional Family Therapy

Guided Group Interaction

Individualized Education Plans

Individual Service Planning

Jewish Child Care Association

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
Multi-Systemic Therapy

National Center on Addition and Substance Abuse
National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice
National Institute of Mental Health

Severe Emotional Disturbances

Statistical Package for Social Sciences

Youth Opportunity Camp

xiv

Chapter 1: Introduction and Problem Statement

1.1 Introduction

Since the birth of civilization scholars and scientists from the social to the natural
sciences have theorized about and attempted to find solutions to alleviate human
problems and to improve the general conditions of human life. It is important to point
out that each generation has its own set of problems and it is only when these problems
are identified that society marshals its resources to tackle them. Historically, society
attempts to solve identified problems through various tactics, including the introduction
of policies describing such conditions and prescribing the necessary remedies. Conse-
quently, the concept of youthful delinquency has been identified and accepted by
society as a problem requiring societal attention. This attention led to the establishment
of the first juvenile court in the United States at the turn of 20th Century (Binder, Geis,
& Bruce, 2001; Britt & Gottfredson, 2003; Hess & Clement, 1993; Shoemaker, 2000;
Siegel, 1992; Siegel & Senna, 1994; Tuell, 2002).

Since the inception of juvenile courts, American society has strived to solve
delinquency by methods such as holding juveniles accountable for their criminal acts
and/or attempting to rehabilitate them (Siegel & Senna, 1994; Tuell, 2002). In order to
provide treatment for young offenders, the juvenile justice system adopted a variety of
intervention strategies including both residential and nonresidential treatment programs
(Bartollas & Miller, 2001; Bates, English, & Kouidou-Giles, 2001; Siegel & Senna,
1994). Juvenile residential treatment programs range fiom maximum-security (total
lockdown) facilities to low security community-based facilities (e.g. youth live at the

facility but attend school in the community). Nonresidential programs are the least

restrictive community-based alternatives and are grounded in an ecological model that
assumes that “. . .children are best understood in the context of the family, and families
are best understood within the context of community” (Ryan, 2006, p. 511).

The residential treatment programs which are the focus of this study are facilities
that offer 24-hour supervision in a highly structured environment. Timothy L.
F itzharris offers a definition of residential treatment program as “...24-hour care
provided in a facility of any capacity outside the licensee’s family residence, with such
services provided by staff employed by the licensee.” (1985, p.6). Therefore, the aim of
staff members in residential facilities is to help the children placed in the care of the
facility (Scholte & van der Ploeg, 2000). These staff members carry out the well-
defmed treatment plans that are designed for each of the children. As Scholte and
van der Ploeg (2000) state, residential staff first assess the psychosocial problems of
the children and then aim at providing the basic care and specific treatment addressing
the problems identified. Based on such initial assessments, some residential treatment
programs aim at working with youth individually rather than the whole family
(Kumpfer, 1999; Mannes, 2000; Osher & Hunt, 2002). This practice stems from
historical approaches to rehabilitation where it was assumed that it is the youth who
has the problems and not the family. Also assumed was that, in many cases, the family
was dysfunctional to the point that the child must be isolated from the home environ-
ment in order to be rehabilitated (Kumpfer, 1999; Mannes, 2000; Osher & Hunt, 2002;
Scholte & van der Ploeg, 2000).

Scholte and van der Ploeg (2000) suggest that contemporary views state that a

child’s family of origin is central during the child’s treatment. Furthermore, family

involvement is the main predictor of a child’s progress both while in residential care
and after discharge. In addition, this paradigm shift supports family strengths and
preservation of the family unit. This, in turn, has led residential treatment programs
(both private and public), as well as community-based treatment programs, to change
their policies to focus more on family-centered practices (J ivanjee, 1999; Jivanjee,
F riesen, Kruzich, Robinson, & Pullman, 2002; Northey, Primer & Christensen, 1997).
This paradigm shift was further bolstered by the federal government’s National
Institute of Mental Health (N IMH) Child and Adolescent Services System Program
(CASSP) goal in 1983 calling for improvement in mental health care for children
(Knitzer, 1982). The philosophy of CASSP has always been to develop an infra-
structure for providing services which are family-centered, family reunification
oriented, community-based and culturally competent (Bogrov & Crowel, 1996; Carlo,
1985; Collins & Collins, 1994).

Research suggests that the increase in family involvement in residential treatment
is due, in part, to the efforts by the federal government to institutionalize family
involvement through policymaking (Banes, 1998). Banes pointed out that in 1985
CASSP staff added a family goal to their program. This goal translates into a require-
ment that state applications for CASSP funds must describe how families would parti-
cipate in service planning efforts at the child and family program and systems levels.
Banes (1998) outlines the policies that Congress enacted to enhance family participa-
tion in service delivery to children. He points out that in 1986 Congress passed the
State Mental Health Services Comprehensive Plan (Public Law 99-660), which

mandates family member participation in the development of state mental health plans.

Banes (1998) emphasized that the mandate of Public Law 99-660 continues today
through the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration Reorganization
Act (Public Law 102-321).

A substantial body of literature supports Banes’ (1998) argument. It is note-
worthy that family involvement is a key component in each of two bills passed in 1975
by Congress. These bills emphasize early intervention services for infants and young
children with disabilities or who are at risk of developmental disabilities (Public Laws
99—457 and 105-17) (Allen & Petr, 1996). Special education law also calls for direct
involvement of family members in the individualized education plans (IEPs) for their
children (Public Laws 94-142, 101-476 and 105-1 7) (Banes, 1998). Given this long list
of laws, one cannot but agree that fiom a policy perspective there is a substantial effort
being made by the federal government to make family members part of the planning
and decision-making process in their children’s development. Family involvement,
therefore, has been the largest paradigm shift in the field of child welfare, juvenile
justice, mental health, education and all forms of out-of-home placement in the last 30
years. We have moved away from a “child rescue” philosophy of saving children from
their “wicked parents” toward seeing parents as potential resources in their children’s
care (Maluccio, 1981; Sinanoglu, 1981; Whittaker, 1981).

The paradigm shift fiom focusing on youth to the entire family and to integrating
family members into the treatment ultimately depends on the behavior of staff
members toward families. As research shows, “. . . the measure of a treatment program
lies in the quality, training and commitment of its staff . . .” (F inkelstein, 1981, p. 89).

In the same line of thought focusing on staff, Baker and colleagues (1995) state that

staff members who have negative beliefs about parents whose children are in
placement may not be receptive to such families. The same authors suggest that if staff
members do not support family involvement, their behavior toward parents will likely
reflect attitudes which could be measurable.

Despite the fact that policies mandate farme involvement, the effects of residen-
tial treatment staff beliefs have not been thoroughly explored. This gap in the literature
does not mitigate the extensive literature that is compiled on professional-client
relationships or professional attitudes toward parental involvement. The argument for
this study points out that, despite the long standing history of family preservation and
strengthening families in the US, staff attitudes toward family involvement with
children placed in juvenile justice residential treatment facilities have yet to occupy a
priority in service delivery systems. In addition, research suggests that experts continue
to debate which goals should be prioritized in juvenile justice (Siegel & Senna, 1994;
Streib, 1999). According to Siegel and Senna (1994), some claim that the most
important goal is to protect potential and actual victims by deterring children fi'om
committing antisocial acts.

Others argue that social reform, legislative processes, and employment are the
most practical methods to reduce youth crime. Researchers continue to point out that
some experts argue that the threat of stigma and labeling by the juvenile justice system
is an overriding problem that needs attention. Siegel and Senna (1994) state that other
experts spend considerable time theorizing how to respond to the children with special
needs—such as uneducated, mentally ill and mentally challenged youth—that enter the

juvenile justice system. These different and sometimes conflicting points of view on

how best to address juvenile delinquency allude to the complexities of juvenile justice.
Ample evidence can be found in the literature that demonstrates the tireless work of
researchers, policymakers, and service providers to find solutions to this complex
problem called juvenile delinquency. The irony is that little is to be found in the
literature which articulates the effect of the attitudes of residential staff in supporting

family involvement in the rehabilitative process of delinquent youth.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

In 2003, law enforcement agencies in the United States made an estimated 2.2
million arrests of persons under the age of 18 years. These arrests accounted for 16% of
all arrests for 2003 (Snyder, 2005). It is estimated that 2.4 million youth were arrested
in 2000, which accounts for 17% of all the arrests in the United States (Gupta,
Kelleher, Pajer, Stevens & Cueller, 2005). Following arrest, there are a number of
responses the juvenile justice system may pursue. A juvenile may be sent home
without charge or he/ she may be held in a detention facility until formally adjudicated.
Following adjudication by the court, the youth may be placed into a correc-
tional/rehabilitation facility, assigned to a community-based program, or admitted to a
mental health treatment facility or program (Kopiec, F inkelhor & Wolak, 2004;
Lundman, 2001; Lyman & Campbell, 1996; Mann, 2000; and Siegel & Senna, 1994).
According to recent statistics, 104,413 juvenile offenders were committed to juvenile
correctional/treatment facilities in 2001 in the United States (Sickmund, Sladky & Wei,

2004).

In Michigan, the total number of juveniles taken into custody in 2001 was 3,504,
of which 2,739 were committed and 756 were detained in juvenile detention centers.
Only nine juveniles were placed in diversion programs. Michigan is one of the states
with the highest number of juveniles taken into custody and placed into private residen-
tial facilities (Snyder, 2005). Of the 3,504 Michigan youth taken into custody, 1,932
youth were placed in private facilities and 1,572 youth were placed in public (state
operated) facilities. Youth who are arrested but not adjudicated, committed, or placed
in treatment programs, are held in detention centers within which the violation of the
law took place. Thus, a detained youth is held in a detention center operated under
auspices of the county and located within the county where the crime occurred until the
youth is committed for treatment. According to 1973 PA 116 section 3, the detention
home or facility must be contracted or established as an agency of the county and be
operated under the direction of the board of commissioners or, in a county with elected
county executives or under the county executive direction (Michigan Legislature,
www.1egislature.mi.gov retrieved 1/ 19/2008). The law mandates that the detention
home will provide diagnosis, treatment, and care for the detained youth

Kumpfer (1999) cited a study conducted by the Center for Study and Preven-
tion of Violence, where it was projected that by the year 2010, the rate of juvenile
arrests will more than double. Kumpfer suggests that this prediction is based on the
escalating trends observed in juvenile arrests and increases in the actual population of
youth in the 10 to 17 year range. Other studies suggest that the juvenile offenders are

becoming much younger that than a few decades earlier (Hawkins, Herenkohl,

Farrington, & Harachi, 1998; Stouthamer-Loeber, Loeber, Farrington, & Wikstrom,
2002)

In addition, these child delinquents are two to three times more likely to
continue their criminal involvement at later ages than their counterparts who may come
in conflict with the law at an older age (Hawkins, et al., 1998; Lyons, Terry,
Martinovich, Peterson, & Bouska, 2001; Snyder, 2001; and Stouthamer-Loeber, et al.,
2002). Research also indicates that 12% of the US population younger than 18 years of
“age has a diagnosable mental illness (Gupta et al., 2005; Institute of Medicine, 1989).
Federal data suggests that 70-80% of these children either end up in the juvenile justice
system or do not receive adequate care and, if they do, the services are uncoordinated
and incomplete (Institute of Medicine, 1989). An additional concern is that while the
number of juveniles in residential treatment is rising, the cost of care is also sky-
rocketing. According to Lyons and colleagues (200]), residential treatment represents
one of the largest and the most expensive components of the juvenile justice system.
Furthermore, Gupta and colleagues (2005) suggest that about 88,000 juveniles with
diagnosable acute medical and psychiatric problems, including chronic substance
abuse, are being released back into the community without any connection to suppor-
tive community services. In order to address delinquency problems effectively, high
quality prevention, intervention, and reintegration programs that stress family involve-
ment must be developed, funded and utilized.

Research suggests that the growing juvenile crime problem stems from a
complex array of causes. These causes include a lack of adult supervision and strong

role models, and limited opportunities for youth. The negative conditions associated

with poverty, abusive backgrounds, and a host of other social ills add to the influence
of these factors (Feld, 1990; Hirschi, 1969; Kumpfer, 1999; and Shoemaker, 2000). To
address these social problems that are contributing to delinquency, it is critical to
understand the family dynamics influencing the behavior of an individual child as the
family is the first social contact for each child. Social theorists such as Bandura (1969)
and Nye (1958) claim that children learn ways of behaving through observations.
Consequently, it is important that families are included in any intervention and are
helped to understand their role in their children’s development. Including families is
contingent upon staff attitudes and beliefs regarding family involvement.

Despite the knowledge base that supports the involvement of families in thera-
peutic intervention, research has shown that the rate of family visits in residential care
programs, even in community-based treatment centers, is very low (Baker & Blacher,
1992; Baker, Heller, Blacher, & Pfeiffer, 1995; Jivanjee, et al.,.2002; Maluccio, 1981;
Sinanoglu, 1981; and Whittaker, 1981). While the lack of participation of families may
be due to many non-staff related factors (such as having family members in the
criminal justice system, a family of history mental health and poverty, or deceased!
deserted family members) there is also the influence of staff attitudes toward family
participation that must be considered (Baker, et al., 1995; Leone, 1990; Osher & Hunt,
2002)

Traditional practices in juvenile justice facilities and programs assume a poten-
tially collaborative but inherently unequal relationship between the parent and the
clinician. It is likely that this results from issues with power and authority as well as a

presumed expertise integral to a professional, as opposed to the presumed failure of the

parent whose child requires intervention from the juvenile justice system (Alexander &
Dore, 1999; Jivanjee, et al., 2002). Alexander and Dore (1999) outlined four barriers of
partnership, which are: 1) negative beliefs about parents by clinicians; 2) a lack of
clinician’s knowledge and skill in differentiating and treating a full range of family
fimctioning; 3) racial and cultural differences; and, 4) a discrepant view of the compo-
nent of parenting. A study by Collins and Collins (1994) suggests that parent-profes-
sional collaboration in working with children is useful in determining etiology. This
observation reinforces Alexander and Dore’s (1999) argument that a lack of parental
involvement of children in residential treatment centers stems from negative staff
beliefs about and attitudes toward families. While other researchers have pointed out
that transportation difficulties and scheduling issues are hindrances to family involve-
ment (Harvell, Rodas, & Hendley, 2004; Jivanjee, 1999), it is argued that historically,
residential agencies do little to encourage family involvement in treatment (N ickerson,
Brooks, Colby, Rickert, & Salarnone, 2006). Therefore. in order for parents to partici-
pate meaningfully in their children’s treatment, facility staff must be willing to work
with families and the families must be provided the tools necessary to participate in the

process.

1.3 Purpose of the Research

In order to improve policies and practices in residential treatment facilities,
specifically with staff members working with children and their families, it is necessary
to examine the workers’ existing attitudes toward family involvement. The purpose of

this study is to gain insight and knowledge about (a) staff support for family

10

involvement and reunification; (b) the beliefs of staff members about families of
adjudicated juveniles; and (c) the staff members’ perceptions of the effects of family
involvement. This study is unique because it gathered information fi'om staff members
who work with juvenile delinquents and court-referred youth for treatment in a residen-
tial setting while other studies have examined children only in non-juvenile justice
programs. The research project uses a mixed-method approach, consisting of both
quantitative and qualitative components, in order to provide a comprehensive under-
standing of staff members’ attitudes and beliefs about family involvement in residential

treatment for delinquent children.

1.4 Theoretical Framework

The theoretical fiamework used in this study is the Ecological Systems perspec-
tive that draws from research on interactions between living organisms and their
environments (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Friedman, 1999; Johnson, 1999). Using an
Ecological model, Urie Bronfenbrenner (1979) seeks to explain individuals’ develop-
ment in relationship to their environments in the present and over time (Johnson,
1999). Bronfenbrenner (1979) states that individuals are affected by overlapping
interactions of ecosystems that include systems such as microsystems, mesosystems
and an exosystem and macrosystem. Whereas primary microsystems for a delinquent,
as well as for that of any child, include the family, peer group, classroom, and neigh-
borhood, the mesosystem is an interaction that includes the parent’s attempt to
coordinate efforts to educate their child. The exosystem includes all external networks

such as community structures and local educational, medical, employment and

11

communications systems. Influencing all the systems is the macrosystem which
includes cultural values, political philosophies, economic patterns and social condi-
tions. In addition to the identification of the different ecosystems by Bonfenbrenner,
the ecological perspective is defined in The SoLial Work Dictionm (Barker, 2003) as
“An orientation in social work profession and other professions that emphasizes under-
standing people and the nature of their transactions” (p.136). The same source states
that the important concepts of an ecological perspective include “adaptation, transac-
tions, goodness of fit between people and their environments, reciprocity, and
mutuality. In professional interventions, the unit of attention is considered to be an
interface between the individual (or group, family, or community) and the relevant
environment” (p.136). As Maluccio (1981) states, the perspective shifts from a narrow
orientation to a broad view of the child in placement and emphasizes a multifaceted
method of intervention for children and their families within the context of their own
situation and environment.

The assumption is that the ecological perspective is a “. . .theoretical model where
variety of inputs enter the (unit of analysis) and interaction takes place within the
system (intervention) resulting in an output” (Friedman, 1999, p. 3). The input is
comprised of the type of behavioral problems (aggression, antisocial beliefs, severe
parental conflicts, child/family conflicts, etc.) of delinquent children admitted to resi-
dential treatment programs (Friedman, 1999; Scholte & van der Ploeg, 2000). At the
interaction level, the residential staff has responsibility for mobilizing and assessing the
situation while offering therapeutic interventions with the ultimate goal to help the

child reunite with his/her family.

12

In the application of the Ecological Perspective to this study, the idea is to
involve parents as equal partners in the process in order to examine the variety of
characteristics that describe delinquent children’s completion of their residential treat-
ment and successful reentry to community. While the study looks at staff attitudes and
beliefs to determine their support for family involvement, it is worthwhile to note that
there are a number of factors that operate within the entire system to facilitate success-
ful completion of residential programs. Therefore, this descriptive, exploratory study
employs a triangulated approach in order to address the following questions posed to
the staff members included in this study:

1. What training have you had to prepare you for working with youth and
families?

2. Based upon your experiences working with youth in residential settings, do you
think that staff members believe family involvement is an essential component
in the treatment of j uvenile delinquents?

3. In your opinion, what are some of the issues or concerns surrounding families’
involvement with their delinquent children in residential treatment?

4. What is the program or agency’s position regarding family involvement?

5. In addition to what you have previously mentioned, do you have any comments
about family involvement with juvenile delinquents in a residential treatment

program?

The following hypotheses were formulated regarding the relationships among the
variables of this study:

H1 There is a positive relationship between staff support for reunification and
family involvement with delinquent children in residential treatment.

H2 Staff members who hold positive beliefs about families are more supportive of
family involvement.

H3 Clinicians (social workers, family therapists and psychologists) have more
positive attitudes toward family involvement than direct care staff.

13

H4 Administrators have more positive attitudes toward family involvement than
direct care staff members.

H5 The level of support for family involvement varies with socio-demographic
characteristics: race/ethnicity, gender, age, and education.
1.5 Significance of the Study
This study is significant in that it has the potential to illuminate staff attitudes,
specifically toward family involvement with children who have come in contact with
the law and are placed in residential facilities. Although not clearly established in the
literature for the juvenile justice population, there is a body of research in education
and mental health that shows that there are policies in place at the federal level that
recommend family participation (Banes, 1998; Bogrov & Crowel, 1996; Carlo, 1985;
Collins & Collins, 1994). In turn, these policies influence family and child outcomes
for these programs (Allen & Petr, 1996; Baker & Blacher, 1992; and Baker, et al.,
1995)

This project is also significant because existing juvenile justice research shows
that reentry of youthful offenders requires a reexamination of the role of the institution
in relation to the community and the victim (Meats & Travis, 2004; Snyder &
Sickmund, 1999). Coincidentally, institution policies, procedures, and programs are
based on and operate under the influence of the roles and values of staff within the
institution (National Council of Disability--U.S., 2003). It is significant, therefore, to
have an understanding of the attitudes, beliefs, skills and training of those facility staff
members. Many studies show that most residential treatment models assume that

direct-care staff members possess the necessary skills and the knowledge to implement

14

the treatment plans developed by clinicians since they have daily contact with the

youth in residential facilities (Doom, 1999).

Michael C. Doom, (1999) cites a study initiated by the Ohio Support Living

Training Initiative through the University of Cincinnati Center for Developmental

Disorders which covers areas in which direct-care staff members are expected to be

efficient and proficient. The study lists 69 competencies across 11 general areas that

are required of direct-care staff in order to function efficiently in their roles (Gannon,

1996). According to Doom (1999), one of the 11 general areas was “Behavioral Chal-

lenges In Supported Living,” which includes the below staff competencies. Direct

Support staff:

1.

demonstrate an understanding that their job is to support behavior that is appro-
priate to the setting and situation rather than to maintain control of the person
receiving support;

understand that expectations of the community in regard to behavior are different
than standards applied within based programs;

describe behaviors of the individual which may be a barrier to participation in
the community or which may require intervention. This would include know-
ledge of any behavior plan which has been developed and approved by the
Individual Service Planning (ISP) team;

demonstrate a general understanding of the principles of positive support;

understand his/her responsibility is to determine the behavioral needs of the
person receiving support so that he/she can act to prevent problems and manage
the environment so that it supports the person; and

can identify any new behaviors which may require a planning meeting, further
assessment, or notification of a supervisor (Doom, 1999, p. 3, as cited in
Gannon, 1996, p. 14).

These competencies require that the duties of direct-care staff include treatment

responsibilities such as an ability to implement behavioral treatment plans and to

15

provide environmental management. Yet there is no literature supporting these skills
and knowledge for direct-care staff members in juvenile justice facilities. There is a
noted absence of literary work discussing how the attitudes and beliefs that influence
residential staff behavior with juvenile delinquents and their families’ impacts treat-
ment outcomes for these clients. Themes in two empirical research projects on staff
attitudes and beliefs about family involvement from Baker et a1. (1995) and Coleman
(1999) partially illuminate this correlation but these studies were limited to mental
health clients rather than juvenile delinquents.

Furthermore, this study is significant to the field of social work in that it may
help social workers who work in multi-disciplinary environments to evaluate their own
beliefs and values toward families and to increase their level of compassion and fair-
ness in their work with families. This study is based on research that suggests that
parents of institutionalized children are often faced with seemingly insurmountable
barriers which include poor staff-parent communication and a lack of resources (Baker,
et al., 1995; Jivanjee, 1999; Jivanjee et al., 2002). The findings of this study support an
increase in staff-parent communication so that realistic expectations can be established
and appropriate resources identified to enable families to participate in their children’s
treatment while in residential facilities. Such an improvement would give the delin-
quent child an opportunity to complete the treatment program successfully and be
reunited with his/her family.

The findings may also demonstrate that an increase in the level of staff support
for family involvement may assist staff by providing a better understanding of the

juvenile delinquents in their care. Subsequently, this improved understanding may lead

16

to more successful rehabilitation attempts. Above all, family participation may make
the service providers’ job easier which in turn may result into better treatment

outcomes for the child (Osher & Hunt, 2002).

1.6 Definition of Terms

The following definitions are provided in order to provide clarity. Also refer to
(Appendix G) for a glossary of terms particular to juvenile justice.

Lam_ily: Bogenschneider and Corbett (2004) argue that the definition of family
can be categorized in two ways which are structural and functional in nature. The
authors state that structural definitions are based on blood relationship, legal ties, or
residence. Functional definitions take into account such things as sharing resources and
responsibility for caring for the young, elderly, and disabled. For the purpose of this
study, a delinquent child’s family is composed of individuals who support that child
both emotionally and physically, provide learning opportunities, moral guidance, finan-
cial assistance (Anderson, 2001), and help build the child’s self-esteem while in
residential treatment (Osher & Hunt, 2002; Kumpfer, 1999). Thus, a family includes
individuals of various ages who may be related by biology or marriage or not related at
all but who are performing functional activities as a family system.

. Family Involvement: Family involvement with their children may mean different
firings to different people and may depend on the situation. In this study, family
involvement is any role or activity that enables those identified as family members to
have direct and meaningful input into, and influence on, systems, policies, programs, or

practices affecting services (Anderson, 2001) for the delinquent child referred by the

17

court system to receive treatment in a residential setting (Retrieved December 30, 2006
from the World Wide Web:

littpfi "\Vxx'xx‘t‘mpmhmizcrgpttus "glosszirxphtm, 2006).

 

Direct-Care staff/Frontline staff: Direct-care staff is defined as a person who is
employed in a residential facility whose job description includes care and supervision
of delinquents referred by the court system for treatment (Doom, 1999).

Clinician: In this study, a clinician is a masters level social worker or psycholo-
gist or other mental health professional who works with delinquent children referred by
the court system for treatment in a residential setting. The clinician works with indivi-
dual children, groups and_ families helping them to find ways to deal with their psycho-
social and emotional problems (Retrieved December 30, 2006 from the World Wide
Web:

http: " "\x xx \\ .cmpmhInj‘cogpa.us "glossurvhtm, 2006).

 

Parens Patrie: Parens Patrie is a Latin term meaning “parent of his or her
country.” As the state has sovereignty over everything within its jurisdiction, parens
patrie refers to the power of the state to act as the parent of any child or have authority
over any individual who is in need of protection such as an incapacitated individual
(sometimes called a person in need of protection) or a child whose parents are unable
or unwilling to take care of the child (Binder, et al., 2001; Siegel & Senna, 1994;

Wikimedia Foundation, 2001, 2002).

18

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Any study that examines family engagement practices within the juvenile justice
system, particularly within residential programs, must begin with an understanding of
the history, philosophies and policies of that system. Consequently, the existing
literature on the history of residential services, the history of juvenile justice
philosophy and policies (including the oscillation between rehabilitation and
punishment), and the systemic changes that have occurred since the inception of the
juvenile court system are reviewed. Complementary behavioral theories involving
family dynamics will also be reviewed in order to provide an understanding of the
importance of family engagement in residential treatment through an ecological
perspective. There is only a small body of scholarly work available on the topic of
parental and staff collaboration in treatment of children who come in conflict with the
law and are placed in residential treatment facilities as compared to that which is found

in both the education and mental health arenas.

2.1 What is the Juvenile Justice System?

The American juvenile justice system is the legal system that consists of agencies
and institutions whose primary responsibility is managing juvenile offenders (Binder,
et al., 2001; Roberts, 1998; Siegel & Senna, (1994). Roberts (1998) and Siegel &
Senna (1994), identify the following components that are often observed under the
umbrella of a juvenile justice system: the police, pretrial diversion projects, a juvenile
court, children’s shelters, short-term detention facilities, residential treatment

programs, group homes, juvenile correctional facilities, wildemess programs, family

19

counseling programs, multi-systemic treatment providers, restitution programs and
aftercare.

The initial implementation of a juvenile justice system in the United States was
enacted in Cook County, Illinois in 1899 with their separation of juveniles from the
adult criminal justice system. This separation came about as a result of social reforms
and societal changes that swept the United States during the latter part of the
nineteenth century. Included in those changes were philosophical assumptions that
children are inherently different from adults and, therefore, must be treated differently
than adults (Bartollas & Miller, 2001; Binder, et al., 2001; Carey & McAnany, 1984;
Faust & Brantingham, 1974; Lou, 1927; Roberts, 1998). Research suggests that many
schools of thought during this era argued that younger offenders are more inclined to
eliminate their criminal behavior than adults (Binder, et al., 2001; Roberts, 1998;
Siegel & Senna, 1994). Consequently, a rehabilitative approach (versus a punitive
mode) was the major aim of juvenile justice practice. Streib (1999) suggests that the
goal of rehabilitation of young offenders was first envisioned by Jane Adams and other
reformers in order to divert young offenders from the destructive punishment of
criminal courts and to encourage rehabilitation based on individual needs. This effort
recognizes that children are different from adults in terms of cognitive development,
impulse control, emotional control, and judgment capability (Binder, et al., 2001;
Streib, 1999; Tuell, 2002).
2.2a History of Residential Facilities for Juvenile Delinquents

The notion of residential treatment for delinquent youth is a recent concept in the

United States. Prior to the nineteenth century, there were no residential facilities for

20

troubled youth. Troubled youth and orphans were most frequently put into
apprenticeships with tradesmen. The children were more like indentured servants who
had to earn their keep (Binder, et al., 2001; Musick, 1995; Rosen, 1999; Siegel &
Senna, 1994). Those youth who committed crimes received the same punishment as
adult criminals. The 1800’s brought the dawn of the industrial revolution and mass
immigration into the United States. The American society now was faced with the
many challenges of urbanization—namely poverty and juvenile crime. Private
philanthropists began to establish almshouses for the poor and orphanages for widows
and orphans (Musick, 1995; Rosen, 1999).

In addition to efforts by wealthy citizens to care for the poor, public charitable
organizations established juvenile reforrnatories to take care of the growing number of
wayward and homeless children that could be found roaming the streets of large cities
(Musick, 1995; Rosen, 1999). Such early residential programs were called “houses of
refuge” (Binder, et al., 2001; Hess & Clement, 1993; Lou, 1927; Rosen, 1999; Sigel &
Senna, 1994; Streib, 1978). The first house of refuge was established in New York
City in 1825. The New York House of Refirge was created by the Society for
Reformation of Juvenile Delinquents (the society) whose members did not believe that
prison was good for children (Downs et al., 2004; Rosen, 1999). The goal of the New
York House of Refuge was to provide an environment that would ensure the positive
development of youth by focusing on their basic needs and instilling the youth with the
value of work, education, and moral development. In other words, the primary
objective was to reform poor, delinquent youth and to turn them into productive

members of their community (Downs, et al., 2004; Rosen, 1999).

21

Houses of refuge were widely used at the beginning of the nineteenth century for
the placement of delinquent children. The available literature on residential placement
at the dawn of the nineteenth century shows that the houses of refuge in New York,
Philadelphia and Boston provided an important model for responding to juvenile
delinquency in other parts of the United States (Binder, et al., 2001; Downs et al.,
2004; Musick, 1995; Rosen, 1999; Siegel & Senna, 1994).

The house of refuge model was not without flaws. By the middle of the century,
some major problems of the model became apparent. Critics argue that the houses of
refuge failed to rehabilitate youth and were much more prisons than places of refuge
(Binder, et al., 2001). Binder and his colleagues (2001), submit that, in the Boston
House, the proportion of juveniles adjudicated for committing crimes was growing
higher than those considered incorrigible or otherwise at-risk. Furthermore, within a
few years of opening, the New York House became distinctly prison-like, surrounded
by high stone walls and included buildings with individual jail cell-like rooms. In
addition to cell-like rooms, the refuge model housed its children in dormitories,
employing what was called a “congregated system.” According to Binder and
colleagues (2001), “. . . the prison-like refuge houses and reforrnatories, contrary to
intent, were perpetuating the same problems they had intended to solve by mixing
corruptible with already corrupt” (p.202). The failure to meet the ideal intent of
rehabilitating children led to other reformers seeking alternatives to the houses of
refuge model.

One such alternative, the cottage system, also known as the “family system,” was

developed in the 1850’s. The cottage system was first introduced in 1854 at the

22

Massachusetts Industrial School for Girls. The Ohio Reform School followed in 1857.
The cottage system sought to depart from the prison-like and congregated systems that
were prevalent in the older institutions (Bartollas & Miller, 2001; Binder, et al., 2001).
Rather than housing delinquents in dormitory facilities, this new model brought youth
together in groups of one to three dozen inmates having similar characteristics in small
houses under the supervision of a surrogate father or mother. The “family” created was
intended to work, live and attend school together, rarely mixing with the members of
other “families.” Binder and his colleagues report that the proponents of the cottage
system believed that it would provide opportunities for closer supervision of housed
youth and opportunities for higher quality individual attention as opposed to the
impersonal congregated system. Proponents further argued that the cottage system
would closely approximate the kind of family atmosphere and the guidance that
delinquents needed most. Cottage system proponents stressed that “. . . in the true
language of parens patriae, the cottage system enables the state to come as near, the
idea of a well-regulated, honest family as possible, under the circumstances” (Binder,
et al., 2001, p.203).

The principle of parens patriae can be traced to earlier legal and social
constructions on children and youth (Binder, et al., 2001; Siegel & Senna, 1994). The
doctrine dictates the state has sovereignty over everything within its jurisdiction, and
must act as the parent of any child or the authority over any individual who is in need
of protection or a child whose parents are unable or unwilling to take care of him or
her (Binder, et al., 2001; Downs, et al., 2004; Roberts, 1989; Wikimedia Foundation,

2001, 2002). The term has its origin in England’s Chancery Courts of the 16th century

23

(Bartollas & Miller, 2001; Binder et al., 2001; Faust & Brantingham, 1974; Roberts,
1989; Siegel & Senna, 1994). The original doctrine had more to do with property law
than it did a concern for children. Many studies indicate that the law was essentially a
means for the Crown to administer orphans who had inherited land. Parens patriae
established that the king, in his presumed role as the father of England, had the legal
authority to take care of his people, especially those who were unable to do so for
various reasons including age (Binder, et al., 2001; Downs, et al., 2004; Roberts, 1998;
Wikimedia Foundation, 2001, 2002). By the nineteenth century, the legal doctrine
evolved into the practice of the state assuming guardianship over minor children and,
in effect, playing the role of parent if the child had either no parents or if the existing
parents were declared unfit (Downs, et al., 2004).

In spite of advocacy based upon the parens patriae doctrine, the cottage model
and home-like atmosphere that dominated American juvenile institutions during the
nineteenth century was not without its flaws. Research suggests that the children
became hardened while those responsible for their care tended to stress the punitive,
custodial character of the institution over redemptive purposes (Binder et al., 2001). In
other words, the cottage system, designed as an institutional alternative to the older
house of refuge models, did not manifest in the direction that was envisioned by its
proponents.

In the wake of the cottage model, Charles Loring Brace founded the New York
Children’s Aid Society in 1853, challenging the institutionalization of children in
reform schools. Brace believed that the nature of a child’s family had much to do with

the child’s fate and that poor urban parents were largely unfit to raise their children. He

24

promoted a system that evolved into what is known today as foster care homes.
Children fi‘om the inner cities were relocated and placed with families in the Midwest
(Binder, et al., 2001; Downs, et al., 2004; Rosen, 1999). About that same time Jane
Adams, Julia Lathrop, and Lucy Flower were undertaking a movement in Chicago to
establish settlement houses to address the impact of increasing urbanization and
poverty on children and families. This inspired the Chicago Women’s Club to seek
improvement in the conditions for institutionalized juveniles. Their efforts resulted in
the establishment of the first juvenile court (Downs, et al., 2004).
2.2b Residential Facilities Today

Unlike the 1800’s when juvenile residential facilities were operated by religious,
philanthropic organizations and wealthy individuals, today’s facilities are administered
by a wide variety of local, state, federal, and private agencies (Armstrong, 2001;
Musick, 1995). Adjudicated juveniles may be held in various types of facilities such as
training schools, detention centers, reception/diagnostic centers, shelters, boot camps
and half-way houses (Musick, 1995). Additionally, delinquent children are separated
into minimum, medium and maximum security housing groups (Family Independence
Agency, 1997; Musick, 1995). These facilities differ considerably and their programs
range from specialized sex offender treatment to mental health services and include
many elements such as balanced and restorative justice (Family Independence Agency,
2004; Siegel & Senna, 1994). The physical structures also vary across the nation from
outdated buildings to state of the art buildings equipped with amenities such as
monitoring devices, cameras, etc. Most facilities also have indoor/outdoor leisure

areas, libraries, academic/vocational education spaces, chapel areas, visiting areas,

25

reception and processing rooms, security fixtures and fire safety equipment (Family

Independence Agency, 1997, 2003, 2004; Musick, 1995; Siegel & Senna, 1994).

2.3 Juvenile Justice Population

Why children come in conflict with the legal system may be due to certain
primary risk factors. These risk factors may be both personality traits of child as well
as rearing and socialization conditions of the environment (Rosen, 1999; Scholte &
van der Ploeg, 2000). According to the National Center on Addiction and Substance
Abuse (NCASA, 2004), up to 80%0f youths in juvenile justice residential facilities
suffer fi'om learning disabilities and need special education classes, a number which is
at least three to five times the rate of that in the public school population. Furthermore,
up to 75%of all such youth have a diagnosable mental health disorder, as compared to
20% of all 9-17 year olds (NCASA, 2004). Moreover, these juveniles often have
numerous encounters with law enforcement officers well before an actual arrest occurs
(Rosen, 1999). NCASA (2004) states emphatically that by the time children and teens
are arrested, all other systems—family, community, school and govemment—have
failed them. Though there is substantial disagreement in the literature on the empirical
significance of broken homes, children and teens caught in the juvenile justice system
are more likely than other youth to be from at-risk and/or troubled families and often
were abused and/or neglected (Rankin & Wells, 1996; Rosen, 1999; Stouthamer-
Loeber, et al., 2002). Additionally, these youths are more likely to have lived in poor,
crime- and drug-infested neighborhoods and to have dropped out of school (Bartollas,

2000; Rosen, 1999).

26

Figure 1, adopted from Scholte & van der Ploeg (2000), summarizes a model of
primary risk factors that can threaten healthy development and possibly influence
delinquent behavior. These risk factors stem from the child’s primary care
environment. Severe parental conflict, poor parent-child communication, insecure
parent-child attachment, inadequate supervision, and non-responsive, non-democratic
and permissive childrearing are factors of utmost concern. Also of concern are factors
related to school, including poor academic motivation or performance, conflictual
relations with teachers, etc. Additionally, some school-related factors caused by
negative peer group association, are shown in Figure 1. Personality traits that may
contribute to delinquent behavior may be due to insufficiently developed cognitive
skills and ineffective coping behaviors. As this model illustrates, the ecological
environment extends beyond the immediate situation affecting the delinquent child and

includes other persons present in the setting and their influence on the individual.

27

Figure l: Psychosocial Risk Factor Model

 

 

Macro-social and biological factors:

Social class, intelligence, temperament, etc

 

 

I

l

I l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Depres-
, sion
Risk factors at school . Anxiety
0 Lack of motivation With-
0 Low achievement dra
. . wal
0 Conflict wrth teenagers
0 Poor school culture and
teaching style 1‘;
O
B
L
E
M
. . . Risk factors in the
Rrsk factors In the famrly person B
0 Problems of parents {I E
0 Faultth/d' d 0 Poor self control 2
0011 19 1390’ j I I Unbalanced self- V
Insecure attachment esteem I
Poor rearing style, 0 External locus O
e.g. no-responsive, mmml R
authoritarian, lack
of supervision,
Aggres-
Risk factors in the peer group sion
0 Risky behavior HYPE”
. Deviant peers activity
. Conflict with peers An?"
0 Social isolation 30013]
Social Environment Personality of Child

Adopted from Scholte & van der Ploeg, (2000) “Exploring Factors Governing Successful
Residential Treaunent of Youngsters with Serious Behavioral Problems” Thousand Oak, CA: Sage

Publications

28

 

2.4 Types of Juvenile Offenses

Juveniles are considered to be delinquent if they commit an act that, if committed
by an adult, would be a crime. This includes homicide, assault, rape, robbery, burglary,
larceny, auto theft, arson, and drug-related crimes (Roberts, 1989; Siegel & Senna,
1994). Status offenders are youth who engage in behaviors that are illegal based solely
upon their age and, if committed by an adult, would not be considered criminal
(Roberts, 1989; Siegel & Senna, 1994). The most common status offenses are running
away from home, failure to attend school (truancy), refusing to obey parents
(incorrigibility), drinking alcoholic beverages, using tobacco products, violating
curfew, and engaging in consensual sexual activities (Roberts, 1989; Siegel & Senna,
1994). Rather than intervening only when juveniles commit crimes, the state believes
that it is necessary to intervene when juveniles give any indication that they are
heading down the “wrong path,” a path that might lead to crime (Siegel & Senna,
1994). Status offense laws are directly tied to the view that juveniles are immature and
in need of guidance or direction (Siegel & Senna, 1994).

During the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, juveniles who committed status offenses
were frequently arrested and referred to juvenile court (Bartollas & Miller, 2001;
Roberts, 1989; Siegel & Senna, 1994). They were formally processed and adjudicated
as delinquents by the court. Status offense laws came under heavy criticism during this
same period. According to critics, the status offense laws often subjected juveniles who
had not committed any criminal acts to severe penalties, such as confinement in
institutions (Siegel & Senna, 1994; Tuell, 2002). In response to indiscriminate

confinement of young offenders, the federal government passed the Juvenile Justice

29

and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) in 1974 to discourage states from placing
status offenders in institutions and mandating that adjudicated juveniles have a legal
right to treatment. The JJDPA of 1974 is considered to be landmark legislation because
it marks the first time the federal government enacted a law that provides a
comprehensive approach to the problems of juvenile justice and delinquency
prevention (Siegel & Senna, 1994).

The right to treatment clause of the JJPDA of 1974 requires that states provide
suitable rehabilitation programs for children. Counseling, education, and vocational
services are required under the scope of this requirement. These types of services
resonate back to the original philosophy of the nineteenth century reformers of juvenile
justice, most of whom emphasized rehabilitation and not punishment.

The original philosophy of rehabilitating the delinquent child was not without
flaws. The philosophy was sometimes carried out through oppressive practices which
were well-illustrated in the 1870 case of Daniel O’Connell in People v. Turner in
Chicago. Daniel was incarcerated in the Chicago House of Refuge, not because of a
criminal offense but because he was thought to be in danger of growing up to become a
pauper. His parents filed a writ of habeas corpus with the court, charging that Daniel’s
incarceration was illegal. The Illinois Supreme Court concluded that Daniel was being
punished and was not being helped by the institution. It is clear fi'om the Court’s
decision that it rejected the parens patriae doctrine and favored due process in this
case (Tuell, 2002). It could be speculated that this case encouraged and set in motion
the wheels of due process for juveniles, mandating procedural guarantees for juveniles

who come into contact with the law.

30

2.5 Processing Juvenile offenders

As indicated earlier in this chapter, the police form part of the system that deals
with juveniles who come into contact with the law. Consequently, the first stage in a
long process is usually police arrest. In the juvenile justice system, for all criminal
procedures, the police are empowered to make arrests, whether serious or not (Faust &
Brantingham, 1974; Siegel & Senna, 1994; Sutton, 1988; Vito & Simonsen, 2004).
Lesser offenses may also require police action but, instead of being arrested, the child
may be warned and the parents may be called to take custody of their child or a referral
may be made to juvenile social service providers (Miller, Dawson, Dix & Pamas,
1976). The release of juveniles with less serious offenses or status offenses is dictated
by the JJDPA of 1974. The recently amended version of the Act contains a provision
for detaining children in cases of criminal (violent) offenses. When a police officer
takes a child into custody, the child may be brought to the station house for lockup
(JJDPA, 2001). The detained child is taken to a local detention facility or intake
program while awaiting his/her court appearance. When the child appears before a
juvenile court judge, the judge may make a referral to social service agency (Siegel &
Senna, 1994). In such serious crimes, the juvenile court prosecutor initiates a petition
against the child and the trial process is initiated (Binder, et al., 2001; Packer, 1968;
Siegel & Senna, 1994; Tuell, 2002; United States Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-
quency Prevention, 2001). Following the petition, the court may decide to waive a case
(transfer it to adult court) or to adjudicate the youth in the juvenile court. During the
adjudication or trial phase of the case, the court may initiate a psychosocial study of

the child’s background and, subsequently, recommend an appropriate disposition

31

leading to a correctional and rehabilitation program (Siegel & Senna, 1994; Vito &
Simonsen, 2004).

Prior to adjudication, juveniles are subject to an investigation similar to adult
criminals. The investigatory process is discretionary and is based on the nature of the
crime and conditions prior to the arrest. Factors include the type and seriousness of the
offense, the child’s past contacts with the police, and whether or not the child denies
committing the crime (Shelden & Hussong, 2003). Juveniles taken into custody by
police have basic constitutional rights similar to adult offenders. They are protected
against unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Constitutional limitations are also placed on police interrogation procedures under the
Fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Faust & Brantingham, 1974; Shelden &
Hussong, 2003; and Siegel & Senna, 1994). These procedural protections are the
outcomes of legal fights mounted against the juvenile courts for past practices of
depriving children of their constitutional rights under the legal conditions of the parens
patriae doctrine (Siegel & Senna, 1994); Vito & Simonsen, 2004).

As indicated in the previous paragraph, if the child does not admit to the charges
at the initial hearing and is not transferred to adult court, an adjudication hearing is
held to determine the facts of the case. The court then hears evidence of the allegations
in the delinquency petition. This hearing on the merits of the charges and evidentiary
standards is the same as in adult criminal proceedings (Miller, et al., 1976). At this
stage of the proceeding, the juvenile offender is entitled to procedural guarantees given
to adult offenders. These rights include the right to representation by counsel, freedom

from self-incrimination, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses and, in

32

serious offenses such as murder, rape, etc., the right to a jury trial (Faust &
Brantingham, 1974; Miller, et al., 1976; and Shelden & Hussong, 2003).

If the child is adjudicated delinquent, the court must decide what should be done
to treat him/her. This is the disposition stage of the court’s involvement. Dispositional
hearings are less formal than adjudication hearings. The judge imposes a disposition on
the juvenile offender, taking into account the serious of the offense, prior delinquency
record, and family background (American Bar Association and Institute of Judicial
Administration, 1980; Ashby & United States General Accounting Office, 2003;
Bartollas & Miller, 2001). The judge has broad discretion and can prescribe a
disposition ranging from a simple warning or reprimand to community service or
probation to more intense social control measures, such as institutional commitment,
including group home, foster care, or secure facility care. The judge’s decision is
rendered to serve in the best interest of the child, the family and the community
(American Bar Association and Institute of Judicial Administration, 1980; Ashby &
United States General Accounting Office, 2003; Bartollas & Miller, 2001). Disposition
is one of the most important stages of the juvenile court process and is primarily
concerned with treating the child while controlling antisocial behavior. Although social
workers typically get involved during the post-disposition stage — the stage of
rehabilitation — they often are involved beforehand during psychosocial background

investigation and needs assessment.

33

2.6 Adult Criminal Justice System versus Juvenile Justice System

One may begin to wonder if there is any difference between the adult criminal
justice and the juvenile justice systems as many of the components of adult and
juvenile criminal processes are similar. Both include forms of police investigation,
arrest, administrative booking, preliminary hearings, bails, plea bargaining, admission
of plea, grand jury indictment, formal arraignment, trial, verdict, sentence, and appeal
(Siegel & Senna, 1994). However, the juvenile justice system has a separate,
complementary organizational structure. Juvenile justice is administered by people
who bring special skills to the task. The juvenile justice professionals deliver treatment
and attempt to rehabilitate young offenders. The similarities are a result of criticism of
the juvenile court proceedings which were reversed by higher courts as violation of
children’s rights. Despite all the changes, the juvenile justice system, in theory and
practice, remains to a large extent, not only to prevent juvenile crime and to
rehabilitate juvenile offenders but also to provide for abused and neglected children
(Downs, et al., 2004; Howell, Kelly, Palmer, Mangurn, 2004; Lundman, 2001). In
essence, the juvenile justice system provides services to promote the normal growth
and development of all adjudicated young offenders including abused and neglected

children.

2.7 The Swing of the Pendulum Between Rehabilitation and Retribution
Society’s continuous struggle and quest to deal with juvenile offenders is hinged
on societal values. As research indicates, it is without a doubt that societal values have

recently changed, giving rise, to the swing of the pendulum from rehabilitating and

34

treating the child to holding the child accountable for her/his action (Mooradian, 2003;
Siegel & Senna, 1994; Tuell, 2002). Barry Feld (1990), one of the leading scholars of
juvenile justice court, believes that the juvenile justice system has taken on more of the
characteristics of adult courts. He refers to these characteristics as the “crirninalizing”
of the juvenile court.

During the 33 years since the enactment of JJPDA (1974), the juvenile justice
system has become increasingly more consistent with adult procedures, evolving away
from its original paternalistic procedures that were less concerned with
constitutionality. For example, the rights of due process — such as representation by
counsel, jury trial, freedom from self-incrimination, and freedom from unreasonable
search and seizure — were not previously considered in juvenile court because the
primary purpose of the system was not punishment but rehabilitation (Siegel & Senna,
1994). Robert Dawson (1990) suggests that since the two systems are becoming more
alike, it may be time to abolish the juvenile court and merge it into one large criminal
justice system. While there is no evidence in the literature that states have abolished
the juvenile courts, there is also no evidence that they retain the inviolable, legal
distinction between the status of “juvenile” and “adult.” Instead, the age threshold for
trial in adult court seems to fall every time a new incident of juvenile violence captures
the nation’s attention (Butts & Harvell, 1998).

Since the 1980’s, legislators have turned away from the traditional offender-
centered treatment and rehabilitation-oriented philosophy that dominated the field in
the better part of the twentieth century. Their focus is now on emphasizing law and

order, protecting the public and individual accountability. Trojanowicz and colleagues

35

(2001) identified five areas of recent change in states’ statutes that reflect the

pendulous swing toward punitive juvenile justice:

Transfer provision—Laws make it easier to transfer juvenile offenders from
the juvenile to the criminal justice system (45 states).

Sentencing authority—Laws give criminal and juvenile courts expanded
sentencing options (31 states).

Confidentiality—Laws modify or remove traditional juvenile court confiden-
tiality provisions by making records and proceedings more open (47 states).

Victims’ rights—Laws increase the role of victims of juvenile crime in
juvenile process (22 states).

Correctional programming—As a result of new transfer and sentencing laws,
adult and juvenile correctional administrators have developed new programs
(Trojanowicz and colleagues, 2001, p.212).

The reform of holding children accountable is a turning point in the history of the

juvenile justice system. The new direction of policy-makers since the 1980’s is one

where juveniles must take responsibility for their actions. This responsibility is

accompanied by punishments typically reserved for adults (Shelden and Hussong,

2003). This paradigm shift echoes back to the punishment that occurred before the end

of the nineteenth century when the child savers’ movement sought to soften the

response to juvenile crime, ushering in the era of rehabilitation (Henggler &

Schoenwald, 1998).

Michigan is one of the states that has seen changes in its juvenile justice system.

Public Act 374 of 1996 shifted responsibility for adjudicating juvenile cases from

probate to family court (a division of circuit court) (Michigan in Brief, 1998, Retrieved

December 30, 2006 from the World Wide Web:

36

http:fr’wxx'u'.michignninln'icl‘muv'ctlitionllb, 2006). The reform legislation, a package of

 

nine bills, changed the manner in which juveniles charged with crimes are dealt with
by the courts and criminal justice system in Michigan. Some of the changes include
lowering the age at which a juvenile may be tried as an adult for certain crimes from
15 to 14. The changes expand the list of crimes for which a waiver to adult court is
permissible and children of any age involved in those crimes are to be tried in family
court as an adult with a 12-person jury. Among the list of crimes are arson to a
dwelling, assault with intent to murder or inflict bodily harm, attempted murder, first
degree murder, second degree murder, rape, criminal sexual conduct, etc., (Michigan
in Brief, 1998. Retrieved December 30, 2006 fi'orn the World Wide Web:

http::’.”\\'\\'\\'.miflcliigzminln'icliorg ’gtltjonll6, 2006).

 

The 1996 reform also makes it possible for juveniles convicted of an adult crime
to be sentenced as an adult and sent to an adult prison unless the judge finds a
preponderance of evidence that it is in the best interest of society to assign probation or
refer to a juvenile facility. The changes also require parental involvement in the court
proceedings and the treatment of the young offender. Above all, the burden of proof,
prior to release, is placed on the juvenile to prove that s/he is no longer a threat to
society. The policies were well illustrated in 1999, when Michigan’s Nathaniel
Abraham was charged with second degree murder at the age of eleven, and he became
the youngest child in American history to be prosecuted as an adult (Tuell, 2002). The
youth’s defense attorney maintained that, at the time of the shooting, the child’s
intellectual ability was at the level of a six-year old and his language skills were that of

an eight-year old and yet he was still found guilty of second degree murder. Nathaniel

37

was convicted and sentenced to a high security juvenile justice residential facility until
the age of 21 (Shelden & Hussong, 2003; Tuell, 2002).

Toughening policies for juvenile offenders are viewed as a deterrent for out of
control juveniles and a means of protecting society. But research indicates that incar-
cerating children in correctional facilities can be detrimental (Shelden & Hussong,
2003; Tuell, 2002). A large body of research indicates that children who have been
prosecuted and punished as adults are more likely to re-offend, as compared to those
dealt with in the juvenile justice system (Shelden & Hussong, 2003; Streib, 1999;
Thorton & Voigt, 1992; Weijers & Duff, 2002). The change in society’s values and the
increasing reliance upon harsher penalties for juveniles constitute a challenge to the
social construction of consideration of children and adolescents as a unique group and
the notion that children are less criminally responsible than adults. Critics of retributive
justice argue that society views criminal justice through “retributive lens” and that this
process fails to meet the needs of either the victim or the offender (Zehr, 1990).
Despite this pendulous swing from rehabilitation to punishment, there is a recent
paradigm shift to restorative justice principles which prescribes making amends for the
harm done to victims and the community. The principles also encourage holding the
young offenders accountable for their criminal behavior and to teaching better skills to

the offender (Trojanowicz, Morash, & Schram, 2001; Walgrave, 2002).

2.8 Restorative Justice and Impact on Practice
Restorative justice is a new paradigm arising from the failure of retribution-based

justice (Cavanaugh, 1998; Mooradian, 2003; Zedner, 2002; Zehr, 1990). Trojanowicz

38

and colleagues (2001) pointed out that restorative justice provides an entirely different
theoretical fiamework for responding to crime. According to these authors, the
approach of restorative justice is fundamentally different from the retributive focus of
punishment-based approaches. Restorative justice focuses on what needs to be healed,
repaid, and to be learned in the wake of the crimes committed (Bazemore & Umbreit,
2001; Bazemore, Zaslaw, & Reister, 2005 ; Cavanagh, 1998; Zehr, 1990). According to
the prolific writers on restorative justice, Bazemore and Umbreit (2001), most
divisionary reforms in practice flow out of the restorative justice movement.
Restorative justice programs may take a variety of forms and often include victim-
offender mediation, community reparation boards, family group conferencing, and
circles of sentencing (Bazemore and Umbreit, 2001). Restorative justice shifts the
focus of the interventions from solely the offender to the offense and its effects on the
victim as well as the large community of family and fiiends who support both victim
and offender (Bazemore & Umbreit, 2001; Bazemore, et al., 2005; Cavanaugh, 1998;
Trojanowicz, et al., 2001; Zehr, 1990). The goals of restorative justice are to educate
participants about the harms—especially the emotional harm and fracturing of
relationships—caused by the offense, to repair the harms, to rebuild relationships and
to strengthen systems of informal social control (Cavanaugh, 1998; Trojanowicz, et al.,
2001; Zedner, 2002). Although research shows that the establishment of restorative
justice programs in the United States has not kept pace with development in Western
Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, substantial progress in the US has been

made in some jurisdictions (Bazemore & Umbreit, 2001; Bazemore, et al., 2005).

39

Figure 2 is a summary of the restorative justice framework based on the
Balanced Approach to juvenile justice. Assumptions of restorative justice differ fiom

the assumptions based on retributive justice.

Figure 2: The Balanced and Restorative Justice Approach

 

When an offense occurs, an

 

Victims Accountability obligation to victims and community
incurs;
Youth Offenders who enter the juvenile
Youth Competency justice system should exit more
development capable than when entered;

 

Juvenile justice has a responsibility
to protect the public from juveniles
in the system.

Community

Commumty Protection

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Gordon Bazemore and Mark Umbreit, Balanced and Restorative Justice for Juvenile:
Framework for Juvenile Justice in the 21‘" Century (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, August, 1997) p. 14, cited in Trojanowicz, et a1. (2001) p.393

The impact of restorative justice in practice is well illustrated by its processes
that involve offenders, their families, victims, and other interested members of the
community. For example, the prospect for achieving treatment objectives associated
with cognitive therapy can be linked to restorative justice. One of the goals of
conferencing is to encourage empathy for the victims by helping young offenders to
put themselves in the role of the victims. Also, conferencing provides a way to restore
equilibrium in damaged relationships (Bazemore & Umbreit, 2001; Bazemore, et al.,
2005; Cavanagh, 1998; Trojanowicz, et al., 2001; Zedner, 2002; and Zehr, 1990). In
the long term, the impact of restorative justice on practice lies in the vision and reality
of the empowerment and involvement of the three relevant entities discussed herein.

The impacts also include the possibility of developing pro-social, informal social

40

control, and support based upon the involvement of these three entities (Bazemore &
Umbreit, 2001; Bazemore, et al., 2005; Cavanagh, 1998; Trojanowicz, et al., 2001;
Zedner, 2002; Zehr, 1990). The restorative justice approach emphasizes involvement
of family treatment with the delinquent youth. In other words, the practice of
restorative justice cannot be accomplished when professionals choose to deal only with

the child-offender and exclude the family.

2.9 Child-Centered Not Family-Centered Treatment

Since its inception at the turn of the nineteenth century, the juvenile justice
system has had the unique challenge of balancing the interests of the child with those
of the family as a primary source of socialization and as the goal of public safety. This
struggle is evidenced in the constant oscillation between rehabilitation and punishment,
as discussed earlier in this chapter. Although balancing the interests of the child and
family with public safety is a challenge, the distrust of families to actively be involved
with troubled children has been part and parcel of some prominent schools of thought
in resident treatment. Whittaker (1979) describes three schools of thought that
dominated the field of residential treatment during the mid-twentieth century. The
three schools of thought are: psychodynamic, behavioral modification and peer group
approaches, none of which are family-centered.

Psychodynamic Approach: Psychodynarnic treatment programs were commonly
found in the US. midwest, northwest and the far western states (Mayer, 1960;
Whittaker, 1979). Psychoanalytically-oriented residential treatment in the US. was
pioneered by Bettelheim at the Sonia Shankrnan Orthogenic School where the premise

was a child must be removed from his/her pathogenic family in order to be helped

41

(Bettelheim, 1974). Studies indicate that this early psychodynarnic approach expected
parents to surrender their parental rights and hand over control in making decisions
regarding their child’s treatment and religious practices and, in extreme cases, forbid
communication between the family and the child (Mayer, 1960; Whittaker, 1979).

Behavioral Modification Approac_h: The behavioral modification model was
adopted beginning in the 1960’s and continued through the 1970’s. This approach was
pioneered by a group of social workers and psychologists from the University of
Washington and educators at the University of Washington’s preschool (Whittaker,
1979). Behavior modification is based upon the theory that all behavior is learned and
that present behavior can be shaped through a system of rewards and punishments
(Siegel & Senna, 1994). According to Zimmerman (1990), behaviorally-oriented
residential treatment usually involves four phases: 1) identification of behavioral
difficulty, 2) clarification of the reinforcement patterns, 3) specification of behavioral
goals, and 4) application of behavioral techniques. Siegel and Senna (1994) asserted
that the behavior modification approach is an effective model only in institutional
settings. In other words, the problems of children are fiom faulty family patterns and,
as such, children can be expected to recidivate when they return home as a result of
negative modeling by family members.

Peer Group Approacfi: This approach relies upon a youth group to facilitate the
expression of feelings, to solve problems, and to teach members to empathize with one
another (Siegel and Senna, 1994; Whittaker, 1979). Guided Group Interaction (GGI) is
based on the theory that through group interactions, a delinquent can begin to realize

and solve personal problems. Positive Peer Culture (PPC), on the other hand, uses peer

42

leaders to get other group members to conform to acceptable societal behaviors. The
PPC model emphasizes the power of the group to orchestrate change through positive
modeling and group confrontation of negative behavior (Zimmerman, 1990). Using
group members to confront negative behavior and model positive behavior does not
provide room for family involvement.

The theoretical orientations. of the three treatment models presented briefly here
do not lend themselves to family involvement and most likely will lead to staff
considering parents as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. The focus is
on the child rather than the entire family even though the possibility of the child

returning to his/her family is higher than those in the adult prison population.

2.10 Importance of Family Involvement

Until recently, the focus has been to treat the delinquent child without the family
being involved; however, the paradigm shift to family-centered practice suggests that
the family, staff and child are all crucial to the success of rehabilitation (Jenson &
Whittaker, 1989a, 1989b). These authors identified three factors that have encouraged
interest in the importance of family involvement in residential treatment. They are:
1) empirical evidence linking regular visits with shorter lengths of stay and family
involvement with maintenance of positive changes after discharge, 2) changing
professional perspectives which emphasize the importance of family, and 3) changes in
legislation and public policy.

The ecological perspective provides residential treatment programs the unique
opportunity to assess the role of environment while considering other theories such as

control, attachment, and stress-theories. This perspective may contribute to

43

understanding the child’s delinquent behaviors and coping skills within his/her
environment (van der Ploeg & Smit, 1992). Whittaker (1981) argues that the study by
Wells and her colleagues provides empirical evidence of the importance of family
involvement and post-discharge adaptation by the youth. In other words, children who
have little family involvement do not fare as well after they have graduated fiom the
program as those whose family was involved. Therefore, in order to rehabilitate the
delinquent child, the residential treatment program must support family involvement.
The support will enable staff to assess the potential stressors and the stability of the
environment the youth will return to after discharge (Whittaker, 1981).

The importance of family involvement can be assessed through control theories
as well. Control theories of delinquency cover a wide range of topics that focus on
strategies and techniques which regulate human behavior (Shoemaker, 2000; Welch,
1998). Control theories have a long history, dating back to the 1950’s and 1960’s.
Interest began with Albert Reiss’ noted article which examines a number of factors
relating control perspectives to prediction of probation revocation among juveniles,
and with F. Ivan Nye’s study that focuses on family and social control of adolescents
(V old, Bernard, & Snipes, 1998; Welch, 1998). Most important to this study are Travis
Hirschi’s social bound theory, and Walter Reckless’ containment theory of self-
concept (V old, et al., 1998; Welch, 1998). Welch (1998) states that Hirschi and
Gottfredson pinpointed the role of parents as the most essential source of socialization.
Additionally, Hirschi and Gottfiedson (2003) have written supplemental material
regarding the dynamics of the family’s important role in reducing delinquency. Thus,

according to Hirschi and Gottfredson (2003) the basic model of parenting fiom the

control theory perspective is easily described as “Proper socialization of children
requires that adults monitor their behavior and correct misbehavior when it occurs” (p.
150). They have outlined four elements in their model of control and childbearing:
1) parents’ interest in the outcome of their children in the form of affection,
2) attachment of children to caregiver, 3) parental supervision; and 4) discipline.

1. Interest in the Outcome

The parent, caretaker, or guardian must care enough about the child’s behavior
to devote the immense amounts of time and energy that monitoring and
discipline require. Interested guardians do not allow serious accidents, whatever
their teaching potential, and they tend to protect their child from the more severe
penalties of the legal system; however, in some sense penalties might be
deserved.

2. Attachment to Caregiver

This theory assumes that attachment to the caregiver is a requisite to successful
socialization. The caregiver must be interested in the child and the child must
have affection or respect for the caregiver. A major source of attachment is
assumed to be a result of the attention, time and effort devoted to the child by the
caregiver.

3. Supervision

The concept of supervision in parenting takes on a broader meaning when
extending beyond misbehavior to concern for the child’s happiness, safety, and
well-being. For control theory, abuse is the principal cause of punishment and
especially excessive punishment and is the primary source of violence by the
parent for misbehavior by the child. The theoretical centrality of neglect
(supervision) is supported by research, where it is routinely found to be a major
predictor of delinquency. It also supported by actions of the juvenile justice
system, where children who are neglected by their parents or guardians make up
a substantial part of the case loads.

4. Discipline
Research in literature reports that care of children is an important predictor of
delinquency, where care implies supervision and discipline as well as affection.
And the quality of supervision is typically gauged as much by the imposition of
rules or discipline as by parental awareness of the child’s whereabouts or
behavior. Thus, expectations and use of techniques of discipline are routinely
found to be positively correlated with delinquency (p.150).

45

Other research suggests that Nye’s study in 1958 showed that the family was the
most important source of social control and formed the basis of understanding and
helping the troubled youth (Shoemaker, 2000; Vold, et al., 1998). Shoemaker (2000)
states that Nye found delinquents were most likely to come from homes where there
was freedom or no fieedom at all. Consequently, family involvement, though not the
only factor, is an important determining factor of delinquent behavior because it is a
suitable device for explaining both personal and social forms of control (Shoemaker,
2000; Vold, et al., 1998).

2.11 Family Involvement and Delinquency

F arnily has received increasing attention in research as both a risk and a
protective factor for the adjustment of adolescents (Unger, McLeod, Brown, &
Tressell, 2000). However, according to Unger and colleagues, what has been studied is
only the functioning of the dyad in relation to adolescent development. Despite the
dearth of research regarding child outcomes in juvenile residential programs, there is
an abundance of literature in the education arena that suggests that a the youth’s
perception of family cohesion and the quality of the parent-school relationship are
important components that may mediate the effects of interpersonal conflicts on
academic adjustment of the youth (Wierson & Forehand, 1992). In other words, a
supportive family environment and positive parenting behaviors are positively related
to academic achievement. In their national Center for Mental Health and Juvenile
Justice (NCMHJJ) research brief on involving families in juvenile justice, Osher and
Hunt (2002) state “. . . the successful rehabilitation of youth in the system, and their
sustained reintegration into the community rely upon the support of juvenile justice

systems and families in the accomplishment of their goals” (p.4). Similarly, other

46

family-focused interventions have shown positive impacts on child and family
functioning, delinquent behavior, and recidivism (Harvell, et al., 2004). Many studies
confirm that establishing or preserving positive family ties while youth are
incarcerated correlates with successful transition back into the community (Harvell, et
al., 2004; Henggler & Schoenwald, 1998; Herbert & Harper-Dorton, 2002; Juang &
Silbereisen, 1999; Osher and Hunt, 2002).

The family participation accrues benefits to the youth, the family, the juvenile
justice system and the community (Osher & Hunt, 2002). From the perspective of the
youth, supportive family involvement can reduce anxiety and reinforces treatment. It
also provides the youth with advocates who can help articulate their needs and desires.
From the family’s perspective, evidence indicates an ability to participate may reduce
the family’s anxiety by knowing where their child is and by allowing them to retain
some form of influence over the treatment of their child (Osher & Hunt, 2002).

Above all, families know their child best and can provide information that is
critical to keeping the child stable and safe. F arnilies can provide background on:

o The child’s diagnosis and treatment history, including the use of medications.
o The strengths and needs of their child.

0 The family’s capacity to participate in treatment.

0 Circumstances that affect the child’s well-being.

0 Their child’s patterns in responding to people and events in their
surroundings.

0 Their child’s educational history and status, including any Individualized
Educational Plans for special education services.

0 Transition and on-going support services essential for successfiil and
permanent re-entry into the community (Osher & Hunt, 2002, pp.l-2).

47

Families have a wealth of information about the strengths and needs of their children
and should be involved in the development of treatment plans, individualized
education plans and aftercare plans for their children (Cunningham, Henggler,
Brondino, Pickrel,1999). Cunningham and colleagues (1999) followed this up with “. .
.farnilies and surrogate families of emotionally disturbed children should have full
participation in planning and delivery of services.” (p.21). A policy statement by the
Federation of Families for Children’s Mental Health (a leading national family
advocacy organization involved in reform efforts) notes that families should be
empowered to make decisions about their own issues (Cunningham, et al., 1999).
Family support interventions have been promoted as a viable means of
addressing a broad range of issues facing at-risk children and families. Family support
has been used as a way of strengthening parental involvement in their child’s academic
life as a means of preventing academic failure and problem behaviors including drug
use (Curry, Fischer, Reifrnan & Harris, 2003). Others have found that delinquency can
be reduced through child-parent attachment, household rules, and parental supervision
(Wright & Cullen, 2001). These studies are consistent with Hirschi’s (1969) social
bond theory which stresses the importance of indirect or relational control. Wright and
Cullen (2001) suggest that parents who support their children are also parents who
control and are attached to their children. These authors do not hesitate to state that
support and control are conceptually distinct but, in real-life parenting, they are often
intertwined. In other words, both control and support require the investment of parental

time and energy.

48

Despite the strategies and advantages discovered during the literature search on
involving families in treatment, the search would not be complete without addressing
some problems that staff and the agency may encounter during the process of family
involvement. Some of these problems could be that of a seriously dysfunctional family
— such as when a parent is incarcerated or psychiatrically hospitalized or has simply
deserted the child (Baker et al., 1995).

Children and teens caught in the juvenile justice system are more likely than
other youth to come from troubled families and to have been abused or/and neglected
(Grant, 1998; Whipple & Richey, 1997; Whipple & Webster-Stratton, 1991; Wierson
& Forehand, 1992). Consequently, proponents of the child-centered approach argue
that asking parents to be involved in the treatment of the abused child is akin to
reliving the abuse all over again (Siegel & Senna,1994; Whittaker, 1979). Parental
psychopathology has been linked to increased rates of psychiatric disorders among
school children. The psychopathology of such parents often reduces their ability to
assume responsibility as heads of the family hence, it may be futile to invite them to be
part of their children’s experiences while in the residential facility (Hawkins, et al.,
1998; Stoutharner-Loeber, et al., 2002). Thus, child-centered proponents argue
emotional disturbance, drunkenness, criminality, physical ailments or mental
deficiency may make it difficult for such parents to be a resource, let alone equal
partners in the treatment and reintegration of the young offender into the community.
Additionally, delinquents have been found to be victims of indifferent or hostile
parents and, as a consequence, they are less attached to their parents. In the homes of

the delinquents, the pattern of discipline is often erratic, ranging from extreme physical

49

and mental punishment to extreme laxity (Hirschi, 1969; Hirschi & Gottfiedson, 2003;
Whipple & Richey, 1997; Wierson & Forehand, 1992).

The observation of lack of parental responsibility is well articulated in literature
where parents turn a blind eye and deaf ear to siblings’ psychological abuse (Whipple
& Finton, 1995). Acute stressors lead to minimal parental response to siblings’
behavioral problems. This supports the assumption that parents who are dealing with
their own psychological problems may be unable or reluctant to assume the responsible
role as head of the household (Whipple & Finton, 1995; Whipple & Webster-Stratton,
1991). Under such circumstances, it will not be beneficial for the juvenile system to
make them part of the healing process of the young person. In such situations,
physical, sexual or emotional abuse is often minimized and the victim is blamed for
things that are beyond his/her control, including parental retribution. Most juvenile
offenders may have experienced one or all of the types of mental, physical, and neglect
discussed by Whipple and F inton (1995). Whipple and Webster-Stratton’s (1991)
findings in their article entitled “The Role of Parental Stress in Physically Abusive
Families” corroborate extensive findings in the child welfare literature that physical
abuse is a contributing factor for future delinquent behavior (Garbarino & Kelly,
1986)

Given all the problems associated with parental behaviors and deficiencies, one
may conclude that involving parents in their children’s treatment while the children are
held in juvenile justice residential facilities may not be worth the effort. However,
from a practical perspective, focusing on the family as a unit and working on the

family’s strengths (instead of focusing on weaknesses) is more likely to pay off and

50

lead to a safer community and more successful reintegration than when parents are
shut out of the lives of their child offenders.

McNown M. Johnson (1999) suggests that the role of family indicates that
genetic transmission, parental stress, parenting style, the personality of child, parental
attachment, bonding and other socio-economic factors may contribute to juvenile anti-
social behavior and ultimate entry into the juvenile justice system. If this brief analysis
demonstrates that the family is the most important factor in the behavioral outcome of
their child, then it would be possible for one to take a strong position on making
parental involvement a component of the treatment modality of children held in
juvenile justice residential facilities. Research has shown that the many family-focused
models that are based on attachment theory and ecological perspectives which work
with the entire family instead of the child alone show positive results in reducing
juvenile delinquent behavior (Johnson, 1999; Mendel, 2000). Among these models are
Functional Family Therapy (FFT), Multi-systemic Therapy (MST), and the
Wraparound Milwaukee (Mendel, 2000).

Proponents of farnily-based prevention and intervention models maintain the
position that the advantages of parental involvement outweigh the disadvantages.
According to Mendel (2000), F F T has been applied successfully in a variety of
contexts treating a range of high-risk youth and their families. The FFT model allows
for successful intervention with complex and multidimensional problems through
clinical practice that is flexibly structured and culturally sensitive. The primary focus
to uncover the family’s strengths and weaknesses and subsequently build on the

strengths to help rehabilitate the youth will not be fully addressed if parents are

51

excluded in the treatment. Within the FFT model, the family is the best source of
constructing the social history of the young offender and, as such, it does not make
sense to exclude the parents in the treatment process. FFT first demonstrated its impact
in 1973, when a randomized trial found that only 26% of juvenile offenders who
participated in it were re-arrested within 18 months, compared with 50% of a non-
treatment control group (Mendel, 2000).

In addition, when parents are part of their children’s treatment, juvenile justice
caseworkers may become aware of the family’s experience. Understanding their
experience will enable the caseworker to effectively engage family members as
partners in treatment that could result in an increased number of youth completing the
treatment program and improved outcomes. Studies show that an empathetic
understanding of the family experience is the first step towards building trust and
opening channels for communication between families and service providers (Herbert
& Harper-Dorton, 2002; Lyman & Campbell, 1996; Muisener, 1994; Shinke, Botvin,
& Orlandi, 1997; and Unger, et al., 2000).

Another conceptual model of parental involvement in residential treatment is
based on the Evanston Children’s Center of Chicago’s Children Aid Society (Stein,
1995). The goal of engagement is to form partnerships, alliances and working
relationships within a treatment plan. According to Stein (1995), up to 30 children
were served using this model in 1983. These children, just as other children in the
juvenile justice system, had multiple problems and failed other programs. The model
enabled social workers and program administrators to plan the future placement of the

children based on family dynamics.

52

The assumption is that parental involvement may preserve the juvenile’s
relationship with parents and others with whom the youth has bonded. In turn, this may
help the youth to complete the treatment program. It is important to note that unless
parental rights are terminated, program staff members do not replace biological parents
or whomever is significant in the child’s life prior to coming in contact with the law. It
is the job of the program staff to nurture family relationships and to provide help when
the child is held within a residential facility (Stein, 1995; US. Department of Health &

Human Services, 1983; and Walton, Sandau-Beckler, & Mannes, 2001).

53

Chapter 3: Methodology

This chapter provides an overview of the research method utilized for this study,
research procedures agency setting and programs, the study participants selected, and
the sampling techniques employed. Included herein are the possible risk and benefits
of the study to the various participants. The chapter also restates the hypotheses and
focus group questions. The reliability tests and the adequacy of the quantitative

instrument including data collection and data analysis procedures are described.

3.1 Overview of Research Method: Mixed-Methods

This exploratory study utilizes descriptive data analysis and includes both quanti-
tative and qualitative methods. This mixed-method approach enables the capturing of
information which may not have been possible with a single-method design. The
quantitative approach was used to clarify the impact of (1) direct care staff beliefs
about families; (2) the amount of staff training in family-centered practice; (3) the
types and length of professional experience of staff members; and (4) the demographic
characteristics of the employees of a medium-sized, rural juvenile residential facility in
the Midwest. The qualitative component utilized both focus groups and individual
interviews to elucidate the subjective experiences and interpretations of the direct care
staff. The focus group interview process sought an understanding of how staff
members attended to families and if the staffs opinions differed about family involve-
ment from that of the administration, based on a review of the agency’s official

documents.

54

The quantitative and qualitative elements of this study increased the validity of
the results, allowing a synthesis to be formed from the information gathered through
multiple data sources. Triangulation of multiple data sources assisted in neutralizing
the bias that may have been inevitable if a single method had been employed (Ackroyd
& Hughes, 1992; Alston & Bowles, 2003). Cowger and Menon (2001) postulated, “. . .
research that integrates qualitative and quantitative methods has an advantage in that it
(a) proffers increased validity due to triangulation of methods; (b) provides an
opportunity to take advantage of the strengths of each approach; and (c) allows congru-
ence with the principles of social work to study things holistically, in context, and from
more than one frame of reference” (Cowger and Menon, 2001, p. 477).

In their 2001 study, Rubin and Babbie give an example of using multiple
methods to collect information on practitioner responsiveness to chronically mentally
disabled persons. Rubin and Babbie offered three ways to collect and validate the same
information. First, the attitudes of the practitioners regarding the treatment of mentally
disabled persons could be assessed via a self-report. Secondly, disabled clients could
be interviewed about the amount of contact they had with the practitioner and how
satisfied they were with the help they received. Finally, an examination of case records
could be used to tabulate the amount of actual service practitioners provided to dis-
abled clients. The authors state that through the use of data triangulation a researcher is
able to say with a level of confidence that the study was as accurate and thorough as
possible.

To ensure thoroughness in this study, the researcher conducted the quantitative

and qualitative components using ethnographic techniques (e. g. surveys, interviews

55

and focus groups) during various phases of the data collection. The participants of the
first phase included members of upper management (Agency President/CEO, Director
of Human Resources, and Director of Residential Programs), Unit Supervisors, clini-
cians and direct care staff. The second phase consisted solely of focus group interviews
of direct care staff. A physical review of existing agency documents comprised the
third phase.

The variables describing whether staff members supported family involvement of
adjudicated juveniles were examined. There was a dearth of information regarding the
opinions of employees working with juvenile delinquents in residential settings about
the youths’ families and the families’ involvement in their children’s treatment. Baker
and colleagues (1995) conducted research on family involvement by examining that
relationship with employees who work with mentally retarded children and adults in
residential centers. Frances Claire Coleman (1999) based a study on Baker et al. (1995)
by using a modified version of the same instrument to collect data from staff members
of three residential centers for children with severe emotional disturbances (SED). In
both Baker et a1. (1995) and Coleman (1999), findings indicate that staff members
were more supportive of families when programs put staff members in helper roles and
when they also provided guidance for therapy. This current study targets staff members
specifically who work with juvenile delinquents, which adds knowledge about the field
of family-centered practices with children, while emphasizing residential treatment for
juvenile delinquents. The findings also provide knowledge for both policymakers and

service providers to correct staff-related hindrances in effective family involvement.

56

3.2 Research Procedures

The research procedures for this study began with a follow up visit to the facility
after the proposal and the letter of recruitment were submitted (Appendix B). During
the visits, this researcher was introduced to the administrative staff and the staff
member designated to coordinate the study activities for this study. This coordinating
staff member, in collaboration with unit supervisors and team leaders, scheduled the
data collection sessions. The survey questionnaires were distributed by the designated
staff member who also helped facilitate the dates of focus interview sessions.

At the time of data collection, a consent form (Appendix C: Consent for Ques-
tionnaire), consistent with the Michigan State University Institutional Review Board
standards was given to each participant. This consent form explains the purpose of the
study, the basic content of the questionnaire and the ability to egress from the study at
any time. After signing the consent form, participants were given the questionnaires
and an envelope in which they were instructed to return the questionnaire to the admin-
istrative office upon completion. Names and other identifying information were not
included on the survey or envelope. Each individual who completed the questionnaire
and returned it sealed in the envelope received a ten-dollar compensation for his/her
time and effort. The distribution process of the questionnaires and the provision for
returning the envelopes with the completed surveys assured anonymity of participants.

The second phase of the study involved both focus groups and individual inter-
views (which was limited to a random selection of staff identified as direct care staff).
There was a separate consent form (Appendix D: Consent for the Use of Audiotape

and Individual Interview Sessions) for focus groups. This consent form explains that

57

the researcher would conduct focus group interviews with only the direct care staff.
Additionally, the consent stated that focus group questions inquired about the partici-
pants’ beliefs, feelings and attitudes, as well as how they felt about the agency’s formal
position on family involvement. The consent form also requested permission to
audiotape each focus group session. The focus group interview consent form includes a
clause which ensures confidentiality and delineates any potential risk, as well as
possible uneasiness of disclosure of personal thoughts and beliefs in the presence of
co-workers.

Participation in focus groups and individual interviews, just as in the written
questionnaire, was totally voluntary and participants were free to withdraw at any time
from the study. The focus group participants were randomly selected from the list of
employees who were identified as direct care (fiontline) staff by drawing names from a
hat. During the focus group sessions, participants were given an overview of the
research and it was reiterated that the participants had the right to discontinue
participation totally or refuse to answer any of the questions. The interviews consisted
of five open-ended questions (Appendix F: Focus Group Interview), and took approxi-
mately 20 minutes for each participant to complete.

The focus group discussions followed immediately after the written segment.
The researcher offered a raffle ticket to each staff member who participated in the indi-
vidual interview and focus group sessions as an expression of appreciation for the time
and effort of the staff. The prizes for the drawing were: one (1) $100 First Place Prize;
two (2) $50 Second Place Prizes; and four (4) $25 Third Place Prizes. The researcher

described the rules and purpose of the exercises. There were two sessions of focus

58

group exercises which were comprised of five to six participants (for a total of 11
participants) and were conducted on two different days. The written and the discussion

sessions lasted 90 minutes. The total duration of the two sessions was 180 minutes.

3.3 Agency Setting and Programs

The agency is a Midwestern, multi-service nonprofit organization that serves
children, youth, families and individuals. The agency has been a service provider for
45 years (incorporated in 1962). The agency offers programs that are clustered under
three categories that are distinct yet interdependent: (1) Family Interventions, (2)
Residential Treatment for youth referred by the court system, and (3) Learning
Opportunities for delinquent youth.

The Residential Treatment program at the agency delivers both individual and
group psychotherapy sessions to the placed youth in a structured environment. There is
evidence in the agency public relation materials that the treatment modality encourages
family participation while the child is in placement with the goal of reuniting him with
his family. Successful reintegration of the youth into his home community is often
based on parental involvement and interaction. This level of parent/child interaction
also provides a medium for both the youth and the family to set realistic goals toward
what will be expected when the youth is released into his parents’ custody.
Additionally, the multidisciplinary treatment team is afforded an opportunity to update
treatment plans to meet both the youth’s and the family’s needs. The agency utilizes a

multidisciplinary team for treatment that is comprised of residential and family

59

counselors and a special education teacher, recreational specialist, cook, custodian, and
a treatment coach or director.

Resonating with youth in residential programs across the nation, most of the
adolescents at the agency are high school dropouts or truants and are likely to have
used illegal substances at a much earlier age than their non-institutionalized peers
(Morehouse & Tobler, 2000). Consequently, virtually every youth admitted to the
agency residential program attends the Malcolm Williams School (which is staffed by
the Ingharn Intermediate School District) and receives counseling in areas identified as
problematic during the intake assessment. The generalized approach utilized at the
agency includes many treatment modalities prevalent in both social work and criminal
justice literature. Figure 1 is a summary of the various programs and services the
agency provides.

The first of the Youth Opportunity programs was launched in 1967 and was
known as the Youth Opportunity Camp (YOC). Today it is called the Phoenix
Program. The program was initially a 24-bed residential program providing year-round
care for males, ages 12 to 17. This program serves disruptive, potentially dangerous
youth whose behaviors require structure in order to begin making needed behavioral
changes (Agency Program Information, 2005). In 2000, the program’s capacity
doubled to 48. Another residential program is the Respite/Stabilization Program, which
was created through a contract with the Ingharn County Circuit Court-Family Division.
As part of the agency’s residential services, the Phoenix Program is intended to be a
short-term residential program that combines intensive family therapy with community

services.

60

Other programs under the Youth Opportunity category of the agency’s services
for the delinquent boys are: Special Families Foster Care, Juvenile Diversion, and the
Family Intervention (see Figure 3, Community-Based Intervention Services (C-BIS)
grid). The Special Families Foster Care program provides a permanent home for youth
who do not have biological family members available to them and who are not
candidates for adoption. The Juvenile Diversion program is a community-based,
weekend program for youth who have been issued tickets by Ingharn County law
enforcement officials. The program focuses on helping these youth to connect their

actions with consequences and to motivate them to make better choices in the future.

Figure 3: Services and Programs Offered at the Agency

 

 

Service/Program Description Location
Altematives-Domestic Promotes safety and minimizes risk. Services include Lansing
Violence development of Contracts of Non-violence, assess-

ments, home-based counseling and offender groups
for partners whose behavior is threatening, violent
and/or destructive and therefore interferes with the

 

ability to raise children safely.
Altematives- Family Promotes safety and minimizes risk. Services include Lansing
Violence development of Contracts of Non-violence, assess-

ments, home-based counseling and groups for youth
and their parents. This service is designed to intervene
with youth who are committing domestic violence
against family members and whose parents retaliate in
similar manners.

Breakthrough Experiential training, adventure education and Onondaga
therapeutic services for schools and corporations.

 

 

Community Diversion Gives youth an opportunity to nullify tickets upon Onondaga
successful completion of skill building and
community service activities.

Community-Based A six week long program with services that includes Lansing
Intervention Services home-based counseling, skill groups for youth and
(C-BIS) parents, and behavioral workshops

 

 

 

 

 

 

61

 

Figure 3: Services and ngrams Offered at the Agency (continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Service/Program Description Location
Family Group FGDM serves families with Child Protective Services Onondaga
Decision Making involvement but who are not court involved. Also
(F GDM) serves at-risk adoption placements and youth who

have aged out of foster care. In an effort to prevent the
need for out-of-home placement. Services include a
“Family Group”, the development of a family plan,
and up to a year of ongoing home contact.

Family Reunification Offered by the Department of Human Services (DI-IS), Onondaga

Program (F RP) to families with children returning home fi'om foster
care, residential care, hospital care, etc. Includes: (1)
an in-depth family assessment within 30 days with
possible two month extension; (2) Three to five hours
of weekly counseling and in home support for four
months with possibility of a two month extension; (3)
24-hour availability for resolving re-adjustrnent issues
and related crises.

Foster care Intensive foster care for adolescent youth. Lansing

Families Together Targets families experiencing difficulties parenting Lansing &

Building Solutions their children. Services include: Assessment and Jackson

(F TBS) family plan written with family; three hours of in-
home counseling/week for up to three months. Parent
Group arranged on monthly basis through DHS.

Outreach For parents involved in possible abusive or neglectful Lansing &
child-rearing practices; They face removal of their Jackson
children through DHS

Phoenix Program Focuses on boys age 12-17 from all counties in lower Onondaga
Michigan. The program provides 24:7 supervision and
serves youth whose behavior has become so disrup-
tive and anti-social that this level of structure is
required in order to begin making behavioral changes.

Pride, Respect, For expelled youth in Jackson County schools. Focus Jackson

Opportunity School is on anger management, leadership development. Is a

(PROPS) four to six month program.

Respite/Stabilization For boys, aged 12-17, from lower Michigan counties. Onondaga

Program It is a 14-30 day program

Skills of Success Operates with school using nine-week semesters; can Onondaga
serve up to 12 kids per program; teaches life skills
(interpersonal, problem-solving, anger control)
welcomes parents and teachers.

Wraparound Family Team developed with family to identify ways Lansing &
to: 1) become stronger; and 2) use the support and Jackson

guidance of their friends, neighbors and relatives in

 

the community.

 

 

62

 

The Family Intervention category of services offers the following programs:
F arnily Reunification, Outreach Counseling, Wraparound, Behavioral Health Services,
Family Together/Building Solutions, Family Preservation Program and Home-based
Mental Health counseling.

The Learning Opportunities Programs are offered through the Malcohn Williams
School and are staffed by the Ingharn Intermediate School District. The school serves
youth placed in the Youth Opportunities Camp program and is considered to be one of
the most successful alternative education programs in the state of Michigan.

The summary of the spectrum of programs (Figure 3, B-CIS) offered by the
agency indicates that the organization is committed to family programs as well as to
the betterment of children and families, both in the community and in residential
placement.

Although the study did not include the review of personnel and/or residents
records, the literature review and information gleaned under Act 280 of the Public Acts
of 1939 (as amended giving the Bureau of Children and Adult Licensing the authority
to regulate residential facilities (http://michig_an .gov/dh§/0,167,7-124 27716 27722-

43396-- 00.html retrieved 1/16/2008)) suggested the participating agency has had its

 

share of difficulties with the licensing department of its home state. During a 2003
Department of Consumer and Industry Services inspection to determine compliance
with applicable licensing statutes and administrative rules for Child Care Institutions, a
few violations were discovered. One violation included a lack of educational records
on file for an employee who was hired almost a year previous to the inspection. In

other words, the employee file lacked a transcript or a diploma showing that the

63

employee had a high-school diploma, as specified in Rule 121, Direct Care Worker
qualifications,

http://www.d1eg._state.mi.u_s/brs cwl/dt cwl.asp?CWL NBR=CI330201171&cntY IE
me=INGH retrieved on January 16, 2008). The Licensing Consultant also discovered
that an initial dental examination was not completed until four months later than the
three month time fiame specified in Licensing Rule 400.4336. A special investigation
was conducted at the agency which indicated that, despite the agency policies of
completing incident reports in congruence with Rule 400.4109, a direct care staff failed
to complete a report when a youth alleged being attacked by another with shampoo and
bathing materials. The youth allegedly were pretending that they were “horseplaying.”
At other times the agency was investigated regarding the use of profanity by staff in
front of the youths, staff bringing pornographic materials to work, and misuse of the
youth clothing allowance by one staff member in order to purchase items for himself.
Some of the allegations were unsubstantiated. However, the facility was temporarily
shut down at one point and all the residents in the facility removed due to a
substantiated claim of abuse and possible neglect by staff. As a plan of corrective
action the agency reorganized, fired the former President/CEO and hired a new senior
management team. Out of the reorganization came the Phoenix Program which used to
be called Youth Opportunity Camp (Organizational Chart, 2004). The agency
reorganization led to firing many long term employees and hiring new ones.
Consequently, many of the employees in this study have been hired within the last four

months to a year.

3.4 Subject Population and Sample selection

The participants of this study were employees of the participating organization
(referred to as “agency” or “the facility”) located in rural Michigan. The study, which
was conducted on agency premises, included direct care staff, clinicians and adminis-
trators. Additionally, direct care staff members were asked to participate in a focus
group and separate, self-administered written individual interviews.

Participants were recruited through a non-probability sampling method. Recruit-
ment began with a meeting with the Residential Director of the Agency. At such time,
the researcher submitted a proposal and an executive summary of the study to the
Residential Director. The proposal included a cover letter (Appendix A: Recruitment
Letter to the Residential Director) that explains the purpose of the study and that staff
must have had at least 90 days active experience with the agency before participating

in order to ensure an adequate knowledge-base to answer the questions.

3.5 Potential Risks and Safeguarding Confidentiality of Participants

This research project carried with it minimal risk. The research participants were
not engaged in any activity — mental or physical — that is out of the range of a normal
day. The participants were asked to answer questions on issues that they discuss or
deal with on a regular basis as part of their employment. This researcher followed the
National Association of Social Work’s Code of Ethics and Michigan State University’s
IRB standards regarding confidentiality. Participants, especially the focus groups, were
informed many times during the process that they were flee to withdraw from the study

at any time and for any reason.

65

Participants were assured that all information provided by them in this data
collection would remain confidential and would be reported in an aggregated manner.
Therefore, a supervisor or administrator looking at the study would not be able to tell
which workers participated and what information was provided by whom during the
various sessions. All written questionnaires were returned to the researcher in sealed
envelopes which prevented individual identification of any participant. Although the
focus group questions were audio-taped, participants’ names were not used and the
tapes were never played for anyone other than the researcher during transcription. The
tapes were destroyed upon completion of transcription. Furthermore, additional steps
to ensure confidentiality were taken through careful data management, which included
storage of all records and data in a locked cabinet in a secure office. Once all the
information was reported in aggregate form, the tapes and paper records were

destroyed.

3.6 Potential Benefits

The findings of this study will enable staff working in residential treatment
programs to evaluate their own expectations, treatment plans, and attitudes toward
families who have their children in these programs. It is anticipated that the findings
will also increase staff-family communication so that more realistic goals are set for
youth and families. These improvements will enhance youth opportunity to complete
the treatment program successfully and be reunited with their families.

At the societal level, it may also lay a framework for changes in policy and the

need for govemment-supported early intervention resources. It may also lead to

66

residential facilities staff developing more realistic treatment plans that involve family
participation. This would, in turn, support and strengthen families. Empowering
parents to become partners in the treatment of their children increases the rate of
completion of residential treatment programs and contributes to successful reentry into
the community (Osher & Hunt, 2002). It cannot be emphasized enough, as Osher and
Hunt (2002) reported, that working with parents in successfully rehabilitating the
juvenile delinquents and reuniting families will benefit society as a whole. Overall, this
research increases knowledge of staff attitudes toward family involvement in the field
of social work practice, the juvenile justice system and residential treatment for

juvenile delinquents and their families.

3.7 Research Questions and Hypotheses

The research hypotheses were derived from an intensive literature review,
including a close look at the works of Baker et a1. (1995) and Coleman (1999). These
two studies examined staff attitudes toward family involvement with children with
mental retardation and severe emotional disturbances in residential treatment centers.
The overarching question of the study was: What are staff attitudes toward families’
involvement in their children’s treatment when these children are adjudicated delin-
quent and are court-ordered to receive treatment in residential facilities? The questions
that guided the research fell into four categories. The first concerns direct care staff 3
support for family involvement and reunification. The second question concerns direct
care staff’s beliefs about families. The third concerns the differences in attitudes

toward family involvement in relation to an employee’s position within the

67

organization. The final category was whether demographic factors influence the
attitudes of staff toward family involvement.

Hypotheses:

H1 There is a positive relationship between staff support for reunification and
family involvement with delinquent children in residential treatment.

H2 Staff members who hold positive beliefs about families are more supportive of
family involvement.

H3 Clinicians have more positive attitudes toward family involvement than direct
care staff.

H4 Administrators have more positive attitudes toward family involvement than
direct care staff.

H5 The level of support for family involvement varies with socio-demographic
characteristics: race/ethnicity, gender, age, and education.

3.8a Instrumentation for Quantitative Methods

The quantitative measure used for this study was first developed by Professor
Bruce L. Baker at the University of California, Los Angeles, and used in the 1995
Devereux Foundation Family Involvement Study (which will be referred to as
Devereux from this point forward). A modified version of the instrument was later
used by Frances Claire Coleman (1999) to study the attitudes and beliefs among the
employees of the Jewish Child Care Association (JCCA). The instrument was used to
enhance our understanding of why, despite the efforts of social policy to support
family involvement, families are not more involved in their children’s treatment and
care (Baker, et al., 1995).

A 6-point Likert-type scale, such as Baker and others (1995) used in the

Devereux Foundation Family Involvement study, was utilized to collect data. Professor

68

Bruce Baker, the developer of the original instrument, was contacted for permission to
use his scale and for an original copy of the instrument. Professor Baker verbally
granted permission to this researcher and stated that he would track down the original
copy of the instrument for the study. Unfortunately, the original instrument was not
received by the time of data collection. While minimal modification was done to the
Coleman’s version of the questionnaire, there were exceptions. These exceptions
include: the rephrasing of double-barreled questions to create separate questions; main-
tenance of a 5-point Likert-type scale for one question; and rephrasing of some items
to more clearly articulate the objectives of the present study. The revised instrument,
“Staff Attitudes and Beliefs about F arnily Involvement and Reunification Survey”,
contains 98 items, distributed unevenly across five scales and measured broad areas of
attitudes of staff working in a residential setting. The 98 items include socio-
demographic questions. The quantitative instrument took approximately 35 minutes
per participant to complete (see Appendix E).

A. Attitudes Toward Reunification: This scale includes two measures of attitudes
toward reunification. The first measure, borrowed from Baker et al. (1995), inquires
about the respondents’ approximation of what percentage of children should be
returned to their homes. The second measure was developed by Coleman (1999) and
was based on Baker et al.’s (1995) scale of “Reasons to Discourage Involvement
Scale.” This scale includes 21 items that describe characteristics about family (13
items) and the child (eight items). While the Coleman measure was rated on a 5-point
Likert-type scale, the current author utilizes a 6-point Likert-type scale, wherein a

ranking of “six” indicates the strongest belief that a child could return to his/her

69

family. The internal consistency was recalculated using Chronbach’s Alpha (or = .86)
after removal of two items (“Child is reluctant to have parent(s) re—enter his life or
perhaps disrupt his living and relationships with other adults” and “Parents have
history of substance abuse and are willing to change”). Coleman’s (1999) calculated
reliability was or = .85. The measures are relevant to use in the analysis of staff atti-
tudes and beliefs in the participating agency.

B. Beliefs about Families: The scale for staff thoughts about family involvement
was adapted from the Devereux F arnily study which employs a 6-point Likert-type, 11
item scale with an on = .88 (Baker et al., 1995). Reliability to establish internal consis-
tency was recalculated due to some revision of the wording in the adaptation fiom
Coleman’s (1999) study. This was a replication of the Baker et al. (1995) study and
maintains the original 6-point Likert-type scale. The Beliefs about Families Scale
obtained an ot= .67 (Baker et al., 1995) while Coleman’s (1999) modified 5-point
Likert-type scale obtained an or = .51. This measure consists of seven items and
includes a subscale, the Helping Beliefs Scale. The Helping Beliefs Scale includes four
items that inquire about how staff members believe families can be helped (Baker et al,
1995). The alpha coefficient for this scale in the Baker et al. study was .74 while
Coleman’s (1999) recalculated reliability and total for the Positive Belief Scale obtains
an alpha of .66. The reliability of the seven items in the current study was recalculated
(or = .71 ).

C. Support for Family Involvement Scale: This is a 22-item scale which asks

respondents “What should we do to encourage farme involvement?” In the Devereux

study (Baker, et al., 1995), this was a 6-point Likert-type scale and the Chronbach

70

Alpha was .88. The J CCA study was a 5-point Likert-type scale and reliability was or =
.90 (Coleman, 1999). The current study uses a 6-point Likert-type scale and some of
the questions were rephrased and the reliability is or = .86.

D. Advantages of F amilv Involvement Scale: The scale has nine items that
inquire about staff perceptions of the advantages of family involvement. The reliability
of the subscale from Baker et al. (1995) is an alpha of .82 and .88 in Coleman’s (1999)
S-point Likert-type scale. The current study uses a 6-point Likert-type scale. The initial
reliability for this study was a = .80. After removing two items, “Make the child feel
loved, wanted,” and “Facilitate communication between family members and staff,”
the Chronbach Alpha is a = .86

E. Disadvantages of Family Involvement Scale: This scale inquires about staff
perceptions of the disadvantages of family involvement in terms of having a negative
impact on children. An alpha of .71 was obtained by Baker et al. (1995) while
Coleman (1999) obtained an alpha of .83. The reliability was recalculated for this
study and obtained or = .83.

F. Demqgraphics: About You and Your Job: This scale was also adopted fi‘om
Baker et al.(1995) and seeks to obtain basic demographic information such as gender,
race, level of education, years of experience at the facility, and current job activities. A
single question inquires about the amount of time each respondent spends working
with families in a typical week. Ten items inquire about whether or not staff engages in

specific family-related activities (See Appendix E).

71

3.8b Instrumentation for Qualitative Methods

The qualitative component of the study includes focus group interviews of direct
caregivers (frontline staff) and an agency document review. The method of focus
group interviewing has been found to be effective in gathering opinions fiom homo-
genous groups about the reactions of the group members to particular issues and
policies (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998). The focus group sessions, which involve convening
groups of direct care staff in open-ended discussions, inquires about their work life
within the organization. The individual interviews were neither rigidly controlled with
a fixed-format questionnaire nor were they wholly unstructured conversation (Aubel,
1994). In addition, research suggests that focus group interviewing is an effective tool
for gathering group reactions to issues and policies, and revelations of the groups’
knowledge, opinions and concerns about specific subjects (Aubel, 1994; Denzin &
Lincoln 2003; Fontana & Frey, 2003). This study, by including a qualitative compo-
nent which utilizes both focus group questions and an examination of agency docu-
ments, adds details, as well as corroborates and disputes some of the findings obtained
through quantitative methods (Alston & Bowles, 2003; Ginsberg, 2001; Neurnan &
Wiegand, 2000, Patton, 1987; Tracy, 2001). This mixed-method approach was
intended to firlly illuminate staff attitudes and perceptions regarding family
involvement, which has been frequently glossed over in the literature.

The second component of the qualitative data collection includes a review of
official agency documents. The documents reviewed are: Residential/Campus ngra—
tion Manual, Rev. 06F staff manual; personnel policies (revised 6/14/06); mission

statement; Family and Youth Services Overview; Residential Care Phoenix and

72

Stabilization Programs program descriptions; and grievance policies. There is no
identifying information, (such as case records) included in this study. The exploration
of these materials contributes to an understanding of the agency’s purpose, goals and
beliefs. Additionally, this study provides a description of the components that help
corroborate the information obtained from the employees on family involvement with
delinquent children in residential treatment.

The focus groups questions and instructions are inserted in the appendices as
Appendix F (Appendix F: Focus Groups Instructions and Questions).

The guiding questions are:

1. What training have you had to prepare you for working with youth and
families?

2. Based upon your experiences working with youth in residential settings, do
you think that staff members believe family involvement is an essential
component in the treatment of j uvenile delinquents?

3. In your opinion, what are some of the issues or concerns surrounding
families’ involvement with their delinquent children in residential treatment?

4. What is the program or agency’s position regarding family involvement?

5. In addition to what you have previously mentioned, do you have any
comments about family involvement with juvenile delinquents in a
residential treatment program?

3.9 Data Analysis Procedures for Quantitative and Qualitative Methods

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 15, Graduate Pack
was employed for the quantitative data analysis (SPSS, Inc, 2006). As there is some
modification of the scale from Baker, et al. (1995) and Coleman (1999), Cronbach’s

Alpha was used to recalculate the internal consistency of those scales. In reference to

the validity of the quantitative instrument, there is yet to be established any agreement

73

on responses across samples. The instrument, as mentioned earlier, was developed by
Professor Bruce L. Baker to be used in the Devereux Study. The instrument is
standardized on measuring residential staff. Looking at the 1995 study of Baker and his
colleagues and the subsequent 1999 study of Coleman, it could be said with confidence
that the measures are internally reliable. Therefore, the sample is found to be adequate
and complete for analysis of attitudes and beliefs about family involvement.

Descriptive statistics are also used (i.e. calculating means, standard deviations
and fi'equency). Pearson Product Moment Correlations are used to examine staff
members’ demographic characteristics, attitudes and beliefs about families. Tables
were created to illustrate the statistical analyses. Transformation and data collapsing
are used to capture the significant values of the subscales within the five scales. Addi-
tionally, Independent t-Test and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) are computed to test
differences between means across the scales.

The content analysis of focus groups and individual written interviews focuses
on identifying common themes and patterns to describe the direct care staff perceptions
and beliefs about family involvement, level of training, work experience with youth
and families, and issues surrounding family involvement, as well as opinions about the
agency’s position on family involvement. The major themes were assigned codes con-
sisting of a few descriptive words and were placed next to them during the reading of
the transcribed data Next, agency documents were reviewed (i.e., the policy and
operating procedure manuals) and analyzed qualitatively in order to assist in describing

the agency’s support for family involvement of delinquent children in residential

74

treatment. This also allowed this researcher to determine if any congruity exists

between the mission and values of the agency and that of its employees.

75

Chapter 4: Results

This chapter presents the data analysis used to evaluate the research hypotheses
and other questions as stated in Chapter 1. The chapter begins with a description of the
sample and an overview of the representative years of experience in human services of
the participants. The number years of employment with the current agency is also
discussed. Summaries of both the qualitative and quantitative analyses are presented.
The qualitative analyses include focus group questions and a review of the official

agency documents.

4.1 Description of the Sample

Staff age by groups is depicted by Table l. The sample consists of 51 employees,
of which 34 (67.3%) are direct care staff, 5 (10.2%) are clinicians, and 12 (22.4%) are
administrators. F orty-nine of the 51 total participants reported their ages, with a mean

age of 37 years old (range from 22 to 57, SD = 10.2).

Table 1: Age Grouping of Respondents (N =51)

 

 

 

 

Age Group It %
20-25 9 17.6
26-30 7 14.3
31-35 9 17.6
36-40 6 l 1.8
41 -45 9 17.6
46-50 4 7.8
51-55 4 7.8

256 1 2.0
Missing 2 3.9

 

76

Of the total sample of 51, 68.6% are male and 3 1.4% are female. In regard to marital
status, 45.1% of the sample are single, 43.1% married, 7.5% divorced and only 3.9%
reported living with a partner. Table 2 illustrates the demographic characteristics by

employee classification and also provides data on race/ethnicity.

Table 2: Demographic Characteristics by Employee Classification (N = 51)

 

 

 

Direct Care Staff Clinicians Administrators
N = 34 N = 5 N = 12
n % n % n %

Gender

Male 24 47.5 4 7.8 7 13.7

Female 9 17.7 1 2.0 5 9.8
Marital status

Single 16 32.7 2 4.1 3 6.1

Married 12 24.5 3 6.1 7 14.3

Living w/a partner 2 4.1 0 0 0 0

Divorced 3 6.1 0 0 1 2.0

Widowed 0 O O O 0 0
Race/Ethnicity

Caucasian 20 43.5 4 8.7 10 21.7

Afiican American 11 23.9 0 0 1 0

Native American 0 0 O 0 0 0

Asian American 0 0 O 0 0 0

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

 

Many of the staff members (60.8%) report having children of their own while
(39.2%) do not. The mean difference between those having children and those not is
1.4. Those individuals with children report having from one to six children. Six

respondents (22%) report having one child; ten respondents (37.0%) have two; five

77

respondents (19%) have three; three respondents (11%) have four; one person (4%) has
five; and two respondents (7%) have six children. The reported mean is 2.6 (SD = 1.4).

With respect to race/ethnicity, only three racial and ethnic groups are represented
in this sample. One person does not indicate his or her racial/ethnic background.
Seventy percent self-identified as white, while 24% are black and 4% are of
Hispanic/Latino origin.

Table 3 illustrates the highest level of education completed by employee
classification. The levels range from High School graduates to one person who
reported holding an Advanced Degree (beyond Masters). Nineteen respondents report

that they have a Bachelors-level degree.

Table 3: Level of Education by Employee Classification (N=51)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Direct Care Staff Clinicians Administrators
N = 34 N = 5 N = 12
Level of Education
11 % n % n %
Less than High School 0 0 0 0 0 0
High School Diploma 4 7.8 O 0 0 O
GED 1 2.0 0 0 0 0
Some college (1-3 years) 4 7.8 0 0 0 0
Associate Degree 1 2.0 0 0 0 0
College (4 year degree) 19 37.3 3 5.8 4 7.8
Master’s Degree 3 5.9 2 3.9 5 4 8
Advanced Degree 0 O 0 0 l 2.0
Missing 2 3.9 0 0 2 3.9

 

Table 4 illustrates the number of years of experience in human services as well as

the number years of employment within the current agency of the sample. Experience

78

in a human services environment ranges fiom less than six months to 12 or more years.
The mean number of years working in human services related positions is 10.01 (SD =
8.8). While 48% indicated that they have at least 12 years or more of experience, 30%
of the participants indicate they have been working with the agency for less than six
months. The mean number of years working with the agency is 6.5 (SD = 8.0). The
highest number of years with the agency is 28 and the lowest is four months at the time
of the data collection. The fact that only 26% of the participants report that they have
been with the organization for at least five years suggests that there is a possible high
rate of employee turnover. One respondent did not supply answers regarding his/her

experience.

Table 4: Number of Years in Human Services and at Current Agency (N = 50)

 

 

 

 

 

Years in Human Services n %
Less than 6 months 2 4
6 months to 1 year 6 12
2 to 3 years 3 6
4 to 5 years 10 20
6 to 7 years 2 4
8 to 9 years 6 12
10 to 11years 7 14
12 years and over 14 48
Years in with the Agency n %
Less than 6 months 15 30
6monthstolyear 11 12
1.5 to 2 years 3 6
2.5 to 3 years 1 2
3.5 to 4 years 2 4
4.5 to 5 years 3 6
5 years and over 13 26

 

79

4.2 Test of Hypotheses

This section presents the results of the statistical analyses that were used to
investigate staff attitudes about families and support for family involvement as well as
toward the reunification of delinquent children in residential treatment programs with
their families. The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was used to test hypotheses
one and two because it presents possible correlation coefficients between the sets of
variables that describe or predict agency staff attitudes about families and support for
family involvement and reunification. The one-tailed test was used to test the
hypotheses since it was expected there would be a relationship between positive
attitudes about families and staff support for family involvement. It was firrther
expected that support of family involvement would vary along with socio-demographic
characteristics, including; race/ethnicity, gender, age, marital status of respondent,
number of own children and level of education. Other pertinent analyses include the
relationship between the number of years in the human services sector as well as the
number of years working within the current agency. A One-Way Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) was utilized to test hypotheses three and four in order to determine if there
are differences between direct care staff, clinical staff (family therapists) and
administrators in terms of supporting family involvement with delinquent children. For
the statistical methods, an acceptance level of .05 was used. The SPSS v.15 .0 software

package was used to perform all the statistical analysis.

80

4.3a Support for Family Reunification with Children under 18 Years of Age
Overall, staff supported family reunification as a primary program objective. The
same question (“What percentage of children (who are under 18 years of age) should
have the primary objective of reunification with their families?”) asked by Coleman
and by Baker et al. in their 1995 studies, respectively. In the current study, 56.9% of
the staff sampled respond “most or all” (75-100%) and another 33.3% respond “many”
(SO-74%). The mean is “most or all” (4.39 out of 5) with a standard deviation of .92
rounded to the nearest decimal. This is a significant change from the Baker et al.
(1995) study where only 22%of the sample endorsed the goal of rermification of
children in residential treatment with their families. While Coleman’s (1999) study
shows that 41% of the sample endorses the primary objective of reuniting children in
residential treatment with their families, it is still less than half of the respondents. In
this study, only 2% of the staff members respond “none” of the children should return
home to their families. In the Baker et al. study (1995), 8% of the sample responded
“none” of the children should be reunited with their families. A one-sample T-test was
performed in order to test the mean of the question and it was found to be significant

(t = 34.16, df= 50, p < 01).

4.3b Relationship Between Support for Reunification and Family Involvement
The first hypothesis states that there would be a positive relationship between

staff support for involvement and for family reunification. The Reunification Scale is

adapted from Coleman’s study (1999) correlated with family involvement. Pearson

Product-Moment Correlations indicate that there were moderate positive correlations

81

between the Support for Reunification Scale extrapolated fiom Baker et al. (1995) and
the Reasons to Discourage Scale and Family Involvement Scale (r = .35, p = 01, n =
51). In Coleman’s study (1999), the Family Reunification Scale and Percentage of
Reunification of Children Scale correlated with the Family Involvement Scale. In this
study, none of the p values were statistically significant. The correlation between the
Support for Family Involvement and the Percentage of Reunification of Children Scale
(I =.03, p = .85, n = 51), and the correlation between the dependent scales (Reunifica-

tion Scale and Percentage Reunification Scale (r = .16, p = .27, n = 51).

4.3c Beliefs about Families and Support for Family Involvement

As reported in Table, 5 the second hypothesis states that staff members who hold
positive beliefs about families are also more supportive of family involvement in the
delinquent child’s treatment in a residential program. As in Baker et al. (1995), the
Beliefs Scale includes items expressing positive and negative views. For example, one
positive item includes the statement “Most parents sincerely want to do what is best for
their children” while a negative item was “Children in residential treatment have been
maltreated by their families.” The scale also includes items such as “Helping parents
should be an integral part of the program.” New subscales were created in order to test
the assumptions of positive and negative beliefs about families and support for
involvement. The hypothesis that there is a positive correlation between staff beliefs
about families and staff support of family involvement was confirmed. By using
transformation to collapse items into a single subscale, this researcher found indica-

tions that there is a significant positive correlation between positive beliefs and support

82

for family involvement (r = .45, p = 001, n = 51). Also, there is a positive correlation
between helping families and support for family involvement (r = .36, p = 001, n = 51).

Table 5 also indicates that, whereas there was a significant positive correlation
between the Advantages to F arnily Involvement Scale and the Support for Family
Involvement Scale (r = .62, p = .01), the Pearson Correlation indicates that there is no
relationship between the Disadvantages Scale and the Support for Family Involvement
Scale (r= -.175, p = .08). Similarly, there is no correlation between the Negative
Subscale and the Support for Family Involvement Scale (r =-.05, p =.27). Overall, this
suggests that staff members who have positive views about families maintain positive
beliefs about helping families and involving families in the treatment of their delin-

quent children.

Table 5: Correlations Between Support for Family Involvement and Beliefs

 

 

 

(N = 51)
Pearson r with Support
Scales For Family Involvement
Positive Beliefs about Families .45"
Negatives Beliefs about families -.04
Helping Families .36"
Advantages to Family Involvement .62“
Disadvantages to Family Involvement -.17

 

"Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)

4.3d Category of Professionals and Attitudes Toward Family Involvement
The third and the fourth hypotheses concern the differences in attitudes of clini-

cians and administrators versus direct care staff. ANOVA was utilized for the different

83

categories of professional ratings of support for family involvement (see Table 6). It
supports both hypotheses that clinicians and administrators are more likely to support
family involvement more than direct care staff [F (2, 46) = 13.72, p = .01]. As result of
using three categories of professionals and the significance found on the Support for
Family Involvement Scale, a Tukey HSD test was used. The post hoc pair-wise
comparison using Tukey HSD reveals mean differences between direct care staff and
clinicians (F(2, 46)=-18.59, p = .001)] and between direct care staff and administrators
[F (2, 46) = -15.15, p=.01)]. There is no significant difference between clinicians and
administrators [F= (2, 46) =3.44, p= .81)]. The test, therefore, confirms that clinicians
and administrators would likely support or endorse family involvement whereas direct

care staff may not support the idea of family involvement.

Table 6: Categories of Professionals and Their Attitudes Toward Family
Involvement (n = 49)

 

 

 

 

SS df MS F p
Between Groups 2877.38 2 1438.69 13.72 .000
Within Groups 4822.86 46 104.85

 

4.3c Socio-demographic Characteristics and Attitudes Toward Family Involve-
ment
The fifth hypothesis states that the level of support for family involvement varies
based on socio-demographic characteristics such as race/ethnicity, age, marital status,
years of experience in a human services environment, and number of years working at
the agency. Table 7 presents the correlations of socio-demographic characteristics

based on age, number of years in human services sector and number of years the

84

respondent has worked at the agency groupings at the time of data collection. Age of
respondent, number of years of experience in human services environment and number
of years working at the agency were recoded into groups into different variables
transforming them from categorical to interval levels of measurement. Pearson Product
Moment Correlations were used to determine relationships between these variables and
the attitudes toward support for family involvement scale. The demographic variable of
age group does not correlate with attitudes toward support for family scale. However,
there are significant positive correlations between the number of years in human
services (r = .04, p = .004, n = 51) and the number of years working at the agency (r =

.36, p= .01, n = 51).

Table 7: Correlations of Socio-demographic Characteristics and Family Involve-

 

 

 

 

ment
Pearson r with
Support for
Variables 11 Family Involvement
Age 50 .248
Number of years in Human Services 51 .398”
Number of years at agency 47 .363*

 

*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)
"Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed))

An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed on race/ethnicity, gender, marital
status and level of educations and attitudes toward family involvement scale. As
reported in Table 8, there are no significance differences between the variables
(race/ethnicity, marital status, level of education) on the attitudes toward family

involvement scale.

85

Table 8: AN OVA- Demographic Characteristics and Support for Involvement

 

 

 

 

(N=51)
Variable SS df MS F p
Race/Ethnicity
Between Groups 144.48 2 72.24 .42 .66
Within Groups 8006.50 47 170.30
Gender
Between Groups 128.148 1 128.14 .78 .38
Within Groups 8102.61 49 165.36
Marital Status
Between Groups 210.29 3 70.09 .41 .75
Within Groups 8020.46 47 170.35
Level of Education
Between Groups 1599.28 6 266.55 1.74 .14
Within Groups 6596.64 43 170.35

 

4.4a Results of Focus Groups Sessions

There are five questions that were designed for the focus group exercises and
individual responses. Two focus group sessions were conducted and a total of 11 parti-
cipants were randomly drawn fi'om the employees identified as direct care staff. The
first session was composed of five participants and the second included six partici-
pants The first question concerns employee training, which participants disclosed in
both individual and focus groups exercises. This includes on-the-job training as wells
as formal education in child and family-centered related fields (such as social work).
The second question explores staff members’ beliefs in family involvement as an
essential component of the treatment of juvenile delinquents. The third question asks
the participants their opinions on issues or concerns surrounding families’ involvement
with their delinquent children in residential treatment. The fourth question addresses

participants’ perceptions of the agency’s or the program’s position regarding family

86

involvement. The fifth question provides an opportunity for participants to offer
additional comments in relation to family involvement with juvenile delinquents in a
residential treatment program. In all cases, names and other identifying information of
the participants were not used. All verbatim quotes have been referenced as interview

numbers or are presented in third-person pronoun.

A. Training and Preparation to Work with Children and Families

For the inquiry as to the level of training and education, staff answers reflect
agency sponsored in-service training; formal education in Social Work, Criminal
Justice and Anthropology; and considerable experience working in the field. Most of
the agency-based training related to working with youth and families are on the
following topics: Conflict Cycle, Life Space Crisis Intervention, Cognitive Restruc-
turing Therapy, Anger Replacement therapy, Child Care and Development, First Aid
and CPR.

One of the respondents answered the question on training by stating, “I do not
have a lot of on-tlre-job training with the agency but I have a BSW and a MSW.”
Another respondent said

“My training came fiom experience and in-house training. We are required to
have 25 hours of training a year. Being here for 27 years enabled me to learn
dijfirent things. I have 36 hours of cognitive behavioral training which
included how to deal with problem youth, life skills and anger management.
Most important is listen to the child. You get a lot out of the kid. I acquired
some of the skills through on job training. ”

The overall recurring theme in relation to preparedness to work with youth and

families is on-the-job training and years of experience in human services related fields.

The most notable areas of training, as one would expect in the field of juvenile justice,

87

are mainly child-centered. The training is oriented toward working with the delinquent
child and helping him/her rather than working with the child in the context of the
family unit. Although only 11 staff members participated in the direct interview and
focus group session portions of the study, the examination of the level of staff training
reflects the cross-section of all 34 direct care staff members who participated in the
quantitative survey. Of this set of direct care staff, only two people have a formal
education in Social Work or Criminal Justice. The agency has invested its resources in
training staff to help the delinquent child in their custody. There is hardly any focus on

training staff to help work with families.

B. Staff Beliefs about Family Involvement as an Essential Component of
Treatment
The second qualitative question explores the beliefs of the participants regarding
family involvement as an essential component of the rehabilitation of juvenile delin-
quents in placement. The participants state overwhelmingly that family involvement is
supported. Almost all the participants think families must be part of the treatment and
should contribute to the rehabilitation of the child. One participant states
“ We encourage families to visit, stay and play games with their children.
Families must work together to learn their problems [sic]. The importance of
family involvement was evidenced when three stafl (during one of the focus
group sessions) simultaneously said, “Only families know the history of their
children. ” One stajf member spoke at length, lamenting that although staff
members see family involvement as an essential component of treatment, they

do not have the resources to implement family involvement activities that are
meaningful and beneficial to youth and their families:

“Family involvement is important. I think it is essential because when the

juvenile comes into the program the family must have a say on what the
behavior plan is, and also they need support. I also think it can be very difi‘icult

88

to achieve this goal. The reasons why the family component is important but
diflicult to work with is that you have to have the family come up and to do
family workshops, something like that you know [sic]. Something like family
building, we don ’t do that very much. Families live about an hour and half two
hours away. We might get families here once or twice during the six months
stay. That is fi'ustrating. We make phone calls to their parents and that is very
minimal. The kids get home visits once they reach a certain level and some of
them don ’t necessarily have a home. Also, we are dealing with behaviors
constantly and can attribute that to parents. We try to improve parents in
whatever way we could because it does no good for these kids to go back to the
same situation. We just do not have a lot of time or the power to force them to
do certain things [sic]. ”

Some participants, although not the majority, argue that the importance of family
involvement as part of the treatment plan depends on where the child will be going
after graduation fi'om the program. One member of the group said,

“If the child is going to be put in foster care or independent living, family
involvement does not matter much Some of the kids who come have been
severely abused and they don ’t know they were abused. You have to teach to
them to recognize the abuse and to move forward with their life so that one
day, they can forgive their family. ”

It was interesting to observe how the study participants went back and forth with
each making his or her point on why they believe or disbelieve that family involvement
is an essential component. One staff member, who was quiet for most of the focus
group, spoke up and said,

“When we developed our program, it was not only for the youth but for the
family too. It is to build stronger relationships between the families and stafl so
that we can help the child [sic]. If you want to solve the problem, you have to
involve the family. You know, my thing with this part of the program is the

parents have to learn, see what we are trying to provide the kids so that when
the kid goes home the parents know what he has learned here [sic]. ”

The person who brought the discussion to a close made an important point. The
participant reminded his colleagues of the clientele they serve and the reason why

family involvement should be central to their program:

89

Some parents don’t know how to parent children. If you involve them, provide

them with parenting skills and training, they may learn how to parent. As Mr. ‘X’ said,

“ ...we have had in the past when we bring parents here, played games with the
kids and their parents [sic]. Yes, the Breakthrough Program was the best part
of our program. Everybody is involved, everybody is learning. You know, the
kid never saw his parent play. All they see is the parent as a disciplinarian but
not once they see their parents hit a beach ball, yea my dad is actually playing
[sic]. My mom is here, too. Everyone is getting along. Ah, this is a beautiful
thing [sic]. ”

Content analysis of the participants’ individual interviews and narratives
supports the assertion that family involvement is taken as a serious component of the
treatment model for juvenile delinquents in placement. The dominant themes gleaned
from the participant narratives are: that parents must be trained in parenting skills;
parents have important information about their children’s behavioral history; and
parents also need to receive help. There is, however, an absence of the theme of
making parents equal partners in treatment. Parents are thought to serve as informants
rather than co-equals in therapeutic intervention. It is clear that the interpretation of
family involvement was limited to parents telling about their children and that staff
members, in turn, develop a plan to help the child. The ultimate decision of what

happens to the delinquent child in residential treatment seems to be based on parental

cooperation with the program.

C. Issues Surrounding Family Involvement
The third qualitative question asked the participant about issues and concerns
surrounding the involvement of families with their delinquent children who are placed

in residential treatment. The themes that emerged from this question overlap with some

90

of the themes in question two, with the major themes being: barriers of involvement,
familial distrust of the system, distrust between parents and staff, and families resis-
tance to change.

The narratives are reflections of the staff who participated in the focus group
exercises and of those who participated in individual interviews. The focus group
participants unanimously agreed that most of the clients they serve are both socially
marginalized and are poor. As a result of poverty and lack of a means of transportation,
families are often unable to visit their children in placement. Another concern is the
distance of the program’s location in relation to the state’s larger cities from which
many of the children originate. This is compounded by the need for childcare for
younger siblings when a parent has to be away from home for any length of time in
order to participate in the residential program; parents often cannot afford this addi-
tional expense. Both groups affirm that parents have a distrustful view of the juvenile
justice system and have little trust for the staff members and agency. One of the staff
members interj ected

“There is a big distrust of the system. Some of the parents have been through
difficulties with the system, and now, instead of working with you to see what
can be done to improve their children’s life, they finger point — such as you
are this, you are that and you lousy [sic]. That is when the kid reached this
point they were already tired of the system and they really do not want talk to

anybody [sic]. Without cooperation, you are not going to get to the issues that
brought them here. ”

There were other themes that were thought to be problems originating with the
parents and having negative impacts on the children. For the example, one of the
participants (who had more than a decade of experience with the agency) said

“Some of the kids were severely damaged by their parents, and it is a diflicult
decision to involve them in his treatment. We have a kid that is going through

91

that right now. He ’s been living in foster care since he was young. He knows
who his real father is; he knows who his real mother is. They have a lot drug
issues. You have to understand that his mother doesn’t want anything to do
with him. She is not in a position to show any love, you know. That’s a big

concern [sic]. ”

A co-worker added

“We have a kid call home and his mother started yelling, she’s yelling at the
kid [sic]. The kid is in placement and he was looking for nurturing fiom mom
but she was yelling at him so long that he hung up the phone. And for the whole
day we had to process what was going in hindsight [sic]. This does not help the
kid. ” Another observation made was that even when parents show up for visits
they have problems with setting boundaries with their children. One staff said,
“A lot of time I see they do not set boundaries with their child. You have to
make rules and set boundaries with your children. If you cannot do this, then
you have problems. They want to be fiiends with their kids instead of being
parents. For example, a kid calling a parent ‘do ’ or ‘nigga ’ [sic] is inappropri-
ate and irresponsible to it highest degree. ”

D. Agency’s Position on Family Involvement

The fourth focus group question attempts to explore employee perceptions of the
agency’s position regarding family involvement. The question is crucial to under-
standing the context in which the workers carry on the daily activities in fulfillment of
meeting the organization’s goals, including the provision of services to the children’s
families. The content analysis of the narrative of the direct care staff during the two
focus group sessions points to the mission statement of the agency. To better under-
stand the results of the narrative, it is important to know what is contained in the
mission statement:

“To provide opportunities to children, families, and individuals to be

responsible for their own lives and strengthen their relationships with others
(Agency Handout, 2005 ). ”

92

This mission statement and the accompanying vision statement are very important to
the agency and deviation from these values could lead to dismissal, according to the
focus group members. Since there appears to be so much emphasis on the mission
statement, the researcher asked the focus group members to interpret the mission
statement as they perceive it. One of the staff responded by saying, “I think the mission
of the agency is to help people grow and to become successful.” Another staff
interj ected and continued the importance of the mission statement:

“You can check it out. The agency goal is to help people to learn to enjoy their

own lives without harming and being harmed by others. Also, we can ’t do our

program without their involvement. They are resources that we should use

more. We want families to be involved fiom day one in the whole treatment

process, from visiting the camp to having home visits before release. We want

them to learn and to benefit also [sic]. ”

Despite overall agreement that the agency supports family involvement, some of
the participants lamented that financial constraints prevent the agency from doing more
for the children and their families. One the staff member said

“We need funding. We lack the resources, you know. Poverty is a big issue with
the families whose children we serve. If we have funding we can have those
families up here to organize parent classes. Matter of fact, training is

important for parents. We can even organize regional workshops in Detroit
because many of our kids come flom Detroit, too, but don ’t have the resources

[sic]. ”

The view of the program’s support for family involvement is consistent across
the various study participants. However, staff members reported overlapping themes of
familial poverty; lack of transportation; an unwillingness of caseworkers who place the
children with the agency to involve families; the existence of parents who have given
up on their children; and distrust of the servicing agencies as hindering participation.

One long-term staff member stated

93

“The program supports family involvement. The problem, I think, is some
parents look to others to raise or their fix their child. We ’ve never been in a
program where we do not want parents to be involved. We want the whole total
[sic]. Yes, you can fix one thing and expect the others are going to fix
themselves. We bring parents out. We have picnics. The family unity is what the
agency is all about [sic]. We have features around the campus that show family
unity. Parents who cannot make it up here, we go to out of our way to pick
them up, no matter what. We used to do it a lot a while ago. We picked them up
fi'om bus stations. It has become our second nature. Your kid is here. You
should be here and learn the way he is learning. That’s the way it has been and
I have been here nine years. ”

Another important theme regarding the agency’s position on family involvement
involves allowing the residents to go on overnight home visits when they achieve a
certain level in their treatment. According to the staff narrative, the agency policy on
home visits includes the youth staying home and interacting uniquely with family
during the first two visits. The youth was not allowed to go out and socialize with his
friends. Additionally, drug screens were conducted when the youth returned from the
home visit. One participant highlighted the importance of home visits by saying that
when the youth began to enjoy the reward of going home, they began to see that they
have a home and, as such, developed a greater sense of belonging. Even though some
children run away while on a home visit, they almost always end up returning to the
facility. As this staff member said,

“It is true that some kids don ’t come back And it also true that some kids ran
for two weeks and when they returned the caseworker would ask what we did
want to do, and most of the time the agency takes them back [sic]. In my twelve

years here, we have given kids second chances and third chances. That ’s what I
like about our program. ”

94

E. Additional Comments
The last qualitative question gave the participants an opportunity to offer addi-
tional comments about family involvement with juvenile delinquents placed into their
residential treatment program. Once again, themes in this last question reaffirm the
patterns observed in the answers to questions three and four. The staff narrative
emphasizes the making of family involvement a mandatory program component and
striving to include parents throughout the process, from the day of admission to the
program until the child is released or transferred to another facility. The major themes
hinge upon the families’ reluctance to be involved and upon the lack of positive role
models available to children returning home. When probed about what they consider to
be a positive role model, staff answered that a positive role model is someone — a man
or a woman — who can set limits with the youth and show appropriate concern toward
his/her well-being. As one worker said,
“When we don ’t have programs in the schools or outside school, wha ’st a kid
gonna do [sic]? He gonna hang out in the streets [sic]. He will end up causing
harm to the community and someboay has to stop him before it is too late. No

one sets boundaries for these kids. The boundary is television, bling-bling and
fast money [sic]. ”

4.4b Document Review

Analysis of the agency’s official documents includes the organization’s Mission
Statement, Vision Statement, values, bulletins, and brochures regarding the agency’s
services, customers and staff. Some of the core values gleaned from the corporate
materials highlighted the importance of family involvement in that every child that is

admitted to facility must have a family plan that supports his maturation into a

95

responsible adult. The analysis of the documents also shows that the agency
customizes the program to meet the uniqueness of the individual, as determined by

each youth’s needs and strengths.

96

Chapter 5: Discussion, Implications, Limitations and Conclusion

This final chapter highlights some of the results presented in Chapter 4 in rela-
tion to empirical literature on staff attitudes and beliefs toward family involvement.
This chapter also provides a summary and discusses the limitations of the study. The
implications for social work practice, policy, social work education, suggestions for the
participating agency, and research are addressed, as are possible areas for future
research. The dissertation concludes by reiterating that, despite the recognition that
family involvement is an essential component of residential treatment, there are still
barriers that constrain the effective engagement of families in treatment-oriented

activities.

5.1 Discussion

In the literature review conducted for this project, only two studies were found in
the empirical literature that address staff attitudes and beliefs about family involvement
of children in residential treatment. Those studies explore the attitudes and beliefs of
staff working with severely emotionally disturbed (SED) children (Coleman, 1999)
and of staff working in residential treatment for children and adults with mental illness
(Baker, et al., 1995) rather than with delinquent youth. The present study uses a
modified version of the same instrument used by both Coleman and Baker in their
studies but instead examines staff attitudes and beliefs regarding family involvement in

residential treatment for delinquent children.

97

Until recently in the empirical literature, the focus has been on child-centered
approaches to the treatment of children in residential treatment rather than family-
centered approaches (Mayer, 1960; Whittaker, 1981). Child-centered approaches are
rooted in various psychodynarnic and behavioral modification models and traditionally
support the removal of the child from the parental home based on the assumption that
the family has played a major role in the child’s current problematic behaviors
(Alexander & Dore, 1999; J ivanjee, et al., 2002). Even with the advent of the National
Institute of Mental Health and the Child and Adolescent Services System Program,
which encourage partnerships between parents and professionals, there is still little
evidence in the literature regarding clinicians’ (social workers, psychologists, psychia-
trists, and/or direct care staff) perceptions of treating family members as co-equals in
the treatment milieu. The Baker et al. study (1995) suggests that staff members who
support family involvement want to provide guidance or therapy to families. The posi-
tion of being expert and wanting to provide guidance and therapy is an indication of
staff not willing to treat families as equals or partners. Baker and colleagues’ 1995
study also notes that staff members are less supportive of activities that empower fami-
lies to be represented in decision-making or that did not involve families in residential
treatment daily activities.

The current study has a number of goals. First, as a result of the limited scope of
the literature on residential staff in juvenile delinquent treatment programs, this
researcher explores the attitudes and beliefs of these workers within the participating
agency. Secondly, the hypothesis that staff attitudes and beliefs contribute to whether

family involvement will be valued at the residential facility was tested. Thirdly, as is

98

consistent with social work principles of professional integrity and competence, the
study assesses the performance of the professionals working with the youth and
families entrusted to their care. Next, the study examines the effectiveness and the
extent of the support of the paradigm shift in service delivery to children from a child-
centered approach to the family-centered practice and encouragement of reuniting
families by those in the field of child welfare services. Lastly, the study intends to
assess the implementation of recent federal and state policy-making which has priori-
tized family involvement in child welfare and treatment. It is important to expand the
knowledge base regarding the attitudes and beliefs of staff working with juvenile delin-
quents in a residential setting in order to determine to what extent policies and

established best practices are integrated into the practices of employees

5.2 Summary of the Study

The current research project utilizes a mixed-methods approach which consists of
both quantitative and qualitative elements in order to enable a more comprehensive
understanding of staff members’ attitudes and beliefs about family involvement. The
staff questionnaire, which was first developed by Professor Bruce L. Baker at the
University of California, Los Angeles, for the Devereux Foundation Family Involve-
ment Study (1995) and later adapted by Frances Claire Coleman (1999), was revised
and used to collect data from 51 participants of a mid-sized, Midwestern juvenile
delinquent residential treatment facility. Questionnaire participants include members of

all levels of staffing at the facility. Focus group interviews were conducted as another

99

data-gathering method. Focus group participants were uniquely direct care staff in
order to maintain homogeneity.

The investigation is an exploratory study using a convenience sample. The
participants are members of the agency and had been employed for at least 90 days at
the time of the study. There are 34 direct care staff, five clinicians (family therapists)
and 12 persons who worked in an administrative capacity, such as directors, secre-
taries, etc.) . The ages of the employees range from 22 to 57 years old. Most of the
workers report having a four-year college degree and no one reports less than a High
School education. The sample was dominated by male staff with a fair representation
of females. Over 60% of the participants report having at least one child of his/her
own.

Despite the dearth of information relating to staff members attitudes and beliefs
toward families of delinquent children in residential programs, the findings in this
study advance the existing literature regarding residential treatment from the perspec-
tive of staff. The findings are grounded in the staff members’ perceptions of their
experience of working with delinquent children and their families.

Overall, the findings suggest that the majority of the agency staff support family
reunification and by a large margin, as compared to the previous studies on this topic
(Baker et al., 1995; Coleman, 1999). Although family reunification is not the main
focus of this study, the agency’s objective of reuniting families is highlighted. It seems
clear that staff recognize a link between a child’s eventual retm'n to his/her home and
activities designed to involve families during his/her placement. For example, during

the focus group sessions one recurring theme was the notion of bringing parents and

100

children together to learn pro-social skills and values. By the same token, the findings
suggest that family involvement is not viewed as important if the delinquent child was
not going to return to the parental home. The findings confirm what many studies
suggest, which is that maintaining the family ties of youth in out-of-home placement
correlates with successful transition into the community (Harvell, et al., 2004;
Henggler & Schoenwald, 1998; Herbert & Harper-Dorton, 2002).

As expected, staff members who have negative beliefs about families are not
strong supporters of family involvement. As depicted on the Disadvantage Scale, this
does not correlate with the Family Support Scale (r = -.175, p = .05). The findings also
support the theory that staff members who maintain positive beliefs about families also
support the involvement of families in treatment. Consistent with other studies about
family involvement, staff members who consider family involvement as an essential
component in the treatment of the child want to play a helping role (Baker et al., 1995;
Collins & Collins, 1994).

The findings strongly suggest that parents must receive training and help fiom
the staff. The staff members in this study did not see family members as effective
contributors toward the rehabilitation of troubled young persons without this help. The
finding is consistent with Baker’s (1995) finding that suggests staff members prefer to
play a leading role and that parents were there to provide information that would
enable them to help the child rather than being equal players in treatment (Collins &
Collins, 1994). The role of parents, according to staff members, is to provide informa-
tion that will enable the professional to determine the causes of a child’s abnormal

behavior(s) and provide the necessary interventions.

101

Another finding that constitutes a major theme in this study is idea that “treating
the child means treating the whole family.” Irnplicitly, that staff members consider
family members as dysfimctional and lacking the ability to make sound decisions. As
such, families are viewed as requiring therapeutic intervention to help them become
functional. This suggests strongly that the entire family needs help because it is not
beneficial to rehabilitate the child and send him back to the same environment. Taken
together, the findings of the study contribute to an understanding of limited involve-
ment of family members in decision-making regarding their child’s treatment when
s/he comes into contact with the law, is adjudicated and referred to receive treatment in
residential facilities. More precisely, the study confirms other findings in the literature
that suggest that professionals are reluctant to treat parents as equals and experts in the
field of therapeutic interventions (Alexander & Dore, 1999; Collins & Collins, 1994;
Leone, 1990; Osher & Hunt, 2002).

Finally, the current study shows that even when staff attitudes and the agency
position are geared towards family involvement there are several barriers that prevent
effective involvement of families. Among these barriers are the distance of the family
home from the residential program site, a lack of resources to implement family
engagement activities, and, to some extent, the families’ distrust of the system and/or
unwillingness to be involved in the treatment or their children. The findings from a
staff perspective do not demonstrate a lack of family involvement due to staff-family
conflict. In fact, according to staff, families are welcome to participate and take advan-

tage of what the agency has to offer in terms of parenting skills and effective

102

management of family problems. Irnplicitly, family involvement is welcomed when

staff members view families as part of the treatment plan.

5.3 Limitations of the Study

There are several limitations in the present study that need to be addressed. First
of all, the modified version of the quantitative instrument utilized in this study was
originally designed to measure staff attitudes in a mental health, non-correctional
setting (Baker et al., 1995) rather than staff working with adjudicated delinquents.
Baker, et al. (1995) used the instrument in three Devereux Foundation residential
centers in California, Arizona and Florida, respectively. Coleman (1999) used a
modified version of the instrument to collect data fiom three Jewish Community
Centers that provide residential treatment for children with severe emotional distur-
bances. This researcher adapted the instrument to study employees who work with
adjudicated delinquent children in one rural, mid-sized agency in the Midwest, Also,
the statistical methods used to collapse some of the variables and to create subscales
may have influenced the outputs of the various scales tested.

Secondly, the current study uses a non-probability convenience sample drawn
from one juvenile delinquent residential treatment agency and, for this reason this
research cannot be generalized to residential treatment staff beyond those employed at
that particular agency. In addition, the sample of participants themselves can be
considered a limitation to this study given the small sample size (N=51) and limited

representation of women and diverse ethnic groups. Furthermore, the participants were

103

from a private sector agency and their interactions with their environment may be
different from those employed in the public sector with similar job descriptions

Thirdly, due to the small sample size and the close knit environment of the
agency, some respondents may have felt obligated to participate. Even though attempts
were made to have the participants write their answers to the qualitative questions
before participation in a focus group interview in order to reduce peer influence, there
is no guarantee that the goal was attained since the discussions mirrored the participant
responses in the written format. The participants may have felt intimidated and
pressured to provide what they believed were desirable answers as conversations were
tape recorded by the researcher.

Additionally, while the investigator made all attempts to be non-influential and
non-judgmental during the focus group sessions, there was a possibility of bias during
the process. The researcher is a social worker employed at the same state’s largest
juvenile delinquent facility, which houses chronic and violent offenders. As such, the
investigator admittedly holds some strong opinions about the topic, perhaps more so
than an investigator who may not have been as intimately associated with the subject
matter. Because of this intimate association with the subject matter, the researcher
asked the focus group participants to respond to the interview questions privately and
in written format before joining the group for discussion.

Finally, an inherent weakness of the study is the exclusion of input by the fami-
lies and the delinquent children who received the services of the agency. It is possible
that when scales that measure client satisfaction are included, the findings may yield

different conclusions.

104

5.4a Implication for Social Work Practice

The study encourages a family-centered approach that is contingent upon staff
attitudes and beliefs about the families of the delinquent children in residential
treatment. It reflects the complexities of social work practice in which social workers
work in a multi-disciplinary environment of professionals coming from different
schools of thought and, hence, maintaining different attitudes and beliefs about
families of delinquent children in residential treatment. Research indicates that family-
based interventions are designed to help adolescents with the fundamental assumption
that the family is paramount to child-development (Bandura, 1969; Gottfredson &
Hirschi, 2003). The source of initial socialization is the parent and, consequently,
addressing a child’s delinquent behavior cannot be holistic without knowing the social
history of the child and his family (Hirschi and Gottfredson, 2003). Remaining true to
this practice depends upon the attitudes and beliefs about families of the involved staff
members. An effort to maintain family connections for all children who come in
conflict with the law, unless they have no family members as a result of death,
incarceration or desertion, depends upon the willingness of staff (Baker et al., 1995).
Furthermore, understanding staff attitudes and beliefs about family involvement
facilitates a more effective planning process that is central to identification of family

strengths.

5.4b Theoretical Implication for Social Work Practice
True to the theoretical framework of ecological perspectives, the current study

recognizes that the delinquent child is part of a family and the family itself is a part of

105

a larger ecological system (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Although derived from systems
theory which is much broader and articulates transactions of individuals at different
levels within the system, the ecological perspectives approach is an influential social
work theory that informs practice and potential for understanding person-in-environ—
ment (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Germain and Gittermain, 1996). Exploring staff attitudes
and beliefs about family involvement in their place of work is compatible with the
ecological perspectives approach of person-in-environment.

Despite volumes of research documenting the importance of involving families,
the source of primary social contact, the problems of the delinquent youth may probab-
ly be traced back to the family dynamics of such involvement (Bandura, 1969; Hirschi
and Gottfi'edson, 2003). This may not occur if staff members have negative beliefs
about families (Baker et al., 1995). Staff attitudes and beliefs about families of the
individual youth may determine whether the staff members are willing to understand
the important influence of peers, school and the neighborhood on the development of
the child’s delinquent behaviors (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Ungar, 2002). By involving
family members, social workers or staff members are able to observe and identify
family strengths/weaknesses during family interactions. The therapist could develop a
goal targeting positive traits and attempt to reinforce them in treatment sessions. This
approach ensures fidelity and measurement of effective outcomes within the
framework of ecological perspectives. In other words, delinquent children are better

served when staff members have a good knowledge base of their social environment.

106

5.4c Implications for Policy

The findings of this study are in line with policies enacted at the federal level,
which emphasize family involvement with children — especially those in the special
education and mental health systems (Allen & Petr, 1996; Banes, 1998). For example,
the 2001 reauthorization of federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
(JJDPA) stresses family involvement activities (Brock, Burrell, & Tulipano, 2006).
However, no matter what the policies stipulate regarding engaging families in treat-
ment, the stipulations cannot be met without appropriation of adequate funds for
implementation. The findings in this study suggest that residential treatment programs
are faced with a major limitation of underfunding of the design and implementation of
activities that engage families. Many delinquent children in residential treatment have
a myriad of problems, ranging fiom mental health to learning disabilities and outright
criminal behaviors (Shireman, 2003). As Shireman (2003) points out, planning treat-
ment to meet the needs of such children may require more financial and human
resources than are currently available. Budget issues limit the ability of delinquent
residential programs to involve families in the service planning process which can be
both labor and financially-intensive, as evidenced in this study. Additionally, agency
decision-making in residential programs is inevitably influenced by national and state
policy, as well as the general public’s perception. Public perception influences public
policy and, as described in the literature, is demonstrated by the back-and-forth swing
of policy between rehabilitation and the “get tough on offenders” attitude (Barry, 1999;
Mooradian, 2003; Tuell, 2002). It is important for policymakers to understand the

societal benefits that can be accrued when families are engaged in the treatment of

107

delinquent children so that they can include supportive policies and allocate the neces-
sary monetary resources to design, hire, and train staff in family-centered practices

leading to successful implementation of family involvement activities.

5.4d Implications for Social Work Education

A recurrent theme in the professional literature and this study has been the
unequal relationship between families and clinicians. This is frequently attributed to
issues stemming fiom professional attitudes that parents lack expertise or the assump-
tion by professionals that parents have failed in their duties as parents (Alexander &
Dore, 1999; Jivanjee, et al., 2002). Others suggest that professionals often assume that
the parent-professional collaboration in treatment of troubled children is only useful in
determining the etiology of the problems at hand and fail to recognize their potential
for solutions (Collins & Collins, 1994).

Social work students need to be taught from an ecological perspective across the
curriculum and be given the opportunity to develop the skills to work within juvenile
justice residential programs. Such skills have applications in many other family-related
programs. Social work is a discipline that traditionally draws upon a pool of multidisci-
plinary knowledge — piecing together information fiom many social and natural
sciences to form a unique knowledge base in academia. Consequently, social work
education should develop courses focusing on the organizational dynamics of juvenile
justice practice. Such orientation must include field education where students are able
to work with direct care workers and their chain of command. Though not explicit in

the study, there is a possibility that many of the direct staff did not receive formal

108

training in family—centered practices. It was also evident in the study that there is a
difference between direct care staff and clinicians, including administrators, regarding
the support of family involvement and reunification of delinquent children with their
families. The study suggests that clinicians and administrators favor family involve-
ment and reunification. This difference may be due to differences in academic training.
Social work education, among other things, is already focused on child welfare and
interpersonal practice with children, youth and families. Incorporating a specific
content area addressing family and staff dynamics in juvenile justice programs will
prepare students who want to pursue a career in the juvenile justice arena It is possible
that when social workers specialize in juvenile justice practice (including the sub-
group of institutionalized juvenile delinquents and their families) their beliefs and
attitudes toward families may be positive and the potential for distrust between staff

and families may be mitigated.

5.4c Implications for Future Research

While there is evidence that encouraging parental involvement in the education
and mental health systems is a good thing, there is little empirical literature on staff
attitudes and beliefs about family involvement with delinquent children in residential
treatment who may also have learning disabilities and mental illness issues (Bogrov &
Crowel, 1996; Carlo, 1985; Collins & Collins, 1994; Wierson & Forehand, 1992). This
study represents a preliminary step in the exploration of staff attitudes and beliefs
toward families of delinquent children in residential treatment facilities. The results

provide support for positive staff beliefs and for family involvement. However, as

109

discussed in the limitations, this study does not include the consumers of the services.
Further study is needed to explore the perceptions of families and of the delinquent
children regarding staff members’ attitudes and family involvement. Specifically,
further work is warranted for targeting the efforts of juvenile delinquent residential
treatment agencies to involve families in decision-making in treatment rather than
merely employing families as providers of information and as passive onlookers in the
treatment process. It is also important to compare the attitudes and beliefs of staff
members in public versus private sector juvenile residential treatment programs to see
if there are any significant differences in attitudes and perceptions relating to family
involvement.

The findings also suggest that in-service training for juvenile residential staff is
focused on child-centered, empirically validated programs rather than family-centered
practices. Heightened family-centered training could equip staff members with the
necessary skills needed to work with families and their delinquent children. Future
research should develop staff training programs with specific components that will
contribute to family-centered practice in residential treatment for juvenile delinquents.
Future work also should include the development and refinement of instruments such
as the one used in this study but designed for juvenile delinquent residential staff in
order to explore the attitudes and perceptions of this segment of child and family
workers. It was disturbing to discover during the literature review for this study that
juvenile residential programs are among the most expensive in the juvenile justice
system and yet there are no measures to assess the attitudes and perceptions of the

professional who delivers services to the children and their families (Engel, Howe,

110

Fahey, & Firm, 2006; Walsh, Kastner, & Green, 2003). Despite the limitations of the
study, the findings have made several important contributions to the body of social
work knowledge describing staff attitudes and beliefs about families of delinquent

children in residential treatment.

5.5 Suggestions for the Participating Agency

This study affirms that the agency and it employees make an effort to involve
families in the treatment of delinquent children in residential programs. The staff mem-
bers express genuine care about the juveniles with whom they are working and are
committed to providing excellent care. But it is important to suggest to the agency
administration that some of its limited resources should be directed toward providing
formal training to staff in family-centered practices. With the recognition that families
have an important role in the overall successful reintegration of delinquent children
into the community, the agency should ensure parents receive training regarding the
family-centered focus of the agency and emphasize the parenting skills training
programs. Also, by providing open information to parents pertaining to their rights, the
distrust between staff members and parents might be defused. Despite the rising cost of
transportation, the agency could build much in the way of trust and demonstration of
their care and concern toward families and their children if the agency provided trans-
portation assistance for monthly family therapy sessions and training.

The research provides the following information regarding staff race and gender
breakdowns. The overwhelming majority of the employees (73%) were Caucasians

and less than 25% were African Americans. Two percent of the participating

111

employees did not indicate their race or ethnic affiliation. In terms of gender distribu-
tion, male staff members (68.6%) and female staff (31.1%) may be a fair distribution,
but an efiort by the agency to increase the number of female employees would be
beneficial. The results also suggest that an increase in the recruitment of minority staff
could improve staff-family relationships. It was apparent from the focus group
exercises that many of the delinquent children the agency serves are fiom urban areas
and possibly the majority belong to minority ethnic groups. Families might feel more
comfortable when they meet individual staff members from their own ethnic group
which may in turn lead to an increase in their involvement in the treatment of their
child.

Additionally, the results show that the staff turnover rate at the agency is high.
More staff were employed at the agency in the range of three months to a year than
those who were employed there for two years and over at the time of the study. This
phenomenon can quite possibly be explained by the reorganization of the agency in
2006. This issue must be addressed in a way that the agency is able to attract, hire and
retain professionals with expertise in juvenile justice and child welfare policies and
practice. In spite of these suggestions, the study affrrrns that the level of professiona-
lism exhibited by the staff and their expressed commitment to providing services to the

children in their care was excellent.

5.6 Conclusion
Despite the small size of the sample in this study, the findings provide informa-

tion that resonates with findings in available studies on residential staff attitudes and

112

beliefs about families and their involvement with children (Baker et al., 1995;
Coleman, 1999; Collins & Collins, 1994). The findings indicate that staff members
support family involvement, especially when the child will return to his/her family. In
contrast with earlier concepts of child-centered approaches of rescuing the child fi‘om
his/her pathogenic family (Bettelheim, 1974), these findings suggest that staff
members of the participating agency do encourage family involvement when the child
is in residential treatment. In addition, the study contributes to the knowledge base
which describes the characteristics of residential staff in the juvenile justice system
such as gender, race/ethnicity, age, education, training and professional disciplines.

The qualitative reports suggest strongly that barriers of family involvement
include a lack of transportation, distrust of the system, and family members giving up
on their parental responsibilities. Also, some staff members view family members as
dysfunctional. There was acute frustration among the workers regarding resource
limitations. The problem of transportation was found to be a major barrier of adequate
family involvement when a delinquent child is in residential treatment and this finding
is congruent with other studies (Baker & Blacher, 1992; Baker et al., 1995; Kruzich,
Jivanjee, Robison, & Friesen, 2003). Consequently, in order to increase family
involvement, the agency must make the provision of providing transportation a
priority.

In sum, while this study identifies many agency strengths, there is still room for
improvement in involving families in the treatment of delinquent teens in residential

settings. The role family is indeed pivotal

113

APPENDICES

114

APPENDIX A

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY INSTITUTIONAL
REVIEW BOARD (IRB) APPROVAL

115

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
November 15, 2007

TO: Ellen WHIPPLE

244 Baker Hall

Re: IRB # 06-665 Category: EXPEDITED 2-7
Renewal Approval Date: November 15, 2007
Project Expiration Date: November 14, 2007

Title: Staff Attitudes and Beliefs About Family Involvement of Delinquent Children
in Residential Programs

The Institutional Review Board has completed their review of your project. I am please
to advise you that your project has been approved.

This letter notes for approval for data analysis on 9contact with subjects and data
collection is complete). Any further recruitment, data collection or contact with
subjects will require IRB review and approval via a revision before
implementation.

The committee has found that your research project is appropriate in design, protects
the rights and welfare of human subjects, and meets the requirements of MSU’s
Federal Wide Assurance and Federal Guidelines (45 CFR 46 and 21 CFR Part 50). The
protection of human subjects in research is a partnership between [RB and
investigators. We look forward to working with you as we fulfill our responsibilities.

Renewals: IRB approval is valid until the expiration dated listed above. If you are
continuing your project, you must submit an Application for Renewal application at
least one month before the expiration. If the project is completed, please submit an
Application for Permanent Closure. ‘

Revisions: The IRB must review any changes in the project, prior to initiation of
change. Please submit an Application for Revision with renewal application.

Problems: lf issues should arise during the conduct of research, such as unanticipated
problems, adverse events, or any problem that may increase the risk of human subjects,
notify the IRB office promptly. Forms are available to report these issues.

Please use IRB number listed above on any forms submitted which relate to this
project, or on any correspondence with IRB office.

Good luck in your research. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at 517-
355-2180 or via email at Llflfigggnrgiucdu. Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D.

SIRB Chair

c: Tohoro Akakpo
3121-3D Trappers Cove Trail
Lansing, MI 48910

116

APPENDIX B

LETTER OF RECRUITMENT TO THE AGENCY

117

Brian Philson, LMSW
Director of Residential Services
Highfields, Inc.

PO Box 98

Onondaga, Ml 49264

Date
Dear Mr. Philson:

As per our previous discussions, I am writing to request your formal permission to conduct
research at your agency. The topic of the research project is the effect of staff attitudes and
beliefs about youths’ families upon the involvement of those families with juvenile delinquents
placed into residential treatment. I am requesting to have contact with your staff as my case
study. Currently, I am a Ph.D. candidate at the School of Social Work at Michigan State
University and am working on my dissertation. My dissertation title is Staff Attitudes and
Beliefs about Family Involvement of Delinquent Children in Residential Treatment Programs.
It is the hope that project will help expand the social work knowledge base regarding Juvenile
Justice System programs. Additionally, it is anticipated that the findings will encourage staff
working with juvenile delinquents in residential settings to evaluate their attitudes and beliefs
about family and support for family involvement.

During the months of November and December, 2006, I would like to come to your agency
and meet with staff members, supervisors and directors who are interested and/or willing to
participate in the study. The study will use a mixed methods approach and will involve
surveying direct care staff, supervisors and administrators. Additionally, direct care staff will
be invited to participate in focus group interviews in order to gather qualitative data. All
activities involving your staff will take four days to complete. I am requesting to review your
agency policy manuals, grievance procedures, etc. There will be no identifying information of
staff or youth, including case records, that will be included in the study.

There are no known risks associated with this study but if at any time employees feel
uncomfortable with the study, they are free to withdraw from the participation. .The Social
Work of Code of Ethics regarding confidentiality will be strictly adhered to as will the
guidelines of Michigan State University Human Research Protection Program.

If you have any further questions about the study, please contact Dr. Ellen Whipple, my
Dissertation Chair by phone: (517)4320-3740, fax: (517)353-3038; or e-mail:
\t'hipplcdmsucdu or regular mail: Michigan State University, School of Social Work, 244
Baker Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

 

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Tohoro F. Akakpo, LMSW, MPA

PhD Candidate

School of Social Work, Michigan State University
517/882-5207

ftakakpo@msu.edu

118

APPENDIX C

STAFF ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS ABOUT FAMILY
INVOLVEMENT SURVEY CONSENT FORM

119

STAFF ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS ABOUT FAMILY INVOLVEMENT SURVEY
CONSENT FORM

Staff Attitudes and Beliefs about Family Involvement of
Delinquent Children in Residential Treatment Programs

You are being asked to participate in a study regarding staff attitudes and beliefs concerning
family involvement with delinquent children in the Highfields residential treatment program.
The purpose of the study is to examine staff attitudes and beliefs, as well as to determine the
level at which staff supports family involvement, and contributes toward a youth’s successful
completion of the treatment program and reintegration into the community.

If you agree to participate, you will be asked to complete an anonymous, written questionnaire
entitled “Staff Attitudes about Family Involvement Survey.” You will only be asked to
complete this questionnaire once and it will take approximately 35 minutes to complete. This
exercise will be conducted on site at Highfields, Inc.

Although there are no known risks associated with this study, it is possible that you may find
some of the questions about your job conditions sensitive and feel uncomfortable in answering.
There is also a small chance that you may find some of the questions personal in nature or they
may cause you to reflect on memories that are unpleasant or even upsetting in nature.
However, procedures have been developed to minimize the risks and ensure confidentiality.
The findings of this study will not contain any identifiable information about you. All
information will be collected in a highly confidential manner and will be summarized in
aggregate form (i.e., by groups rather than individuals). In lieu of names, an identification
number will be assigned to each survey. Further, the data collected will be kept in a locked
cabinet in the office of the Responsible Projector Investigator, Ellen Whipple, Ph.D. The
surveys will be destroyed upon completion of the study. Your privacy will be protected to the
maximum extent allowable by law.

There may not be any direct benefit to you from participating in the study. It is, however,
anticipated that the findings may be beneficial to the clients served at your agency and for the
field at large. It is anticipated that the findings of this study may lead to an increase of
staff/family communication, which in turn will lead to more realistic treatment goals, and
youth being reunited with their families sooner. At the societal level, the findings may lay a
framework for changes in juvenile justice policy and programming and may reinforce the need
for government support of early intervention.

Your participation is entirely voluntary. Your decision either to participate or not will not
affect your employment status with Highfields, Inc. and you are free to withdraw your consent
and discontinue participation at any time. Additionally, you may refuse, without penalty, to
answer any questions that make you feel uncomfortable. You will receive $10.00 as a token of
appreciation for your time and effort.

We appreciate your willingness to participate in this project, and are looking forward to
learning from your experiences and perspectives. If you have any questions about this study,
please contact Dr. Ellen Whipple, Responsible Project Investigator, by phone: (5 1 7) 432-3 740,
fax: (517) 353-3038; e-mail: \Vhipplcfzj‘rmsucdu or regular mail: Michigan State University,
School of Social Work, 244 Baker Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

 

120

If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or if you are
dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact—anonymously, if you
wish—Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of Michigan State University’s Institutional Review
Boards (IRBs) by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, e-mail - irbfi‘msucdu, or
regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1046.

Your signature indicates that you willingly agree to participate in this study and that you
understand that you may withdraw your consent and discontinue your participation at any time,
without penalty.

 

Your Signature

 

Today’s Date

121

APPENDIX D

DIRECT CARE STAFF FOCUS GROUP
INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM

122

DIRECT CARE STAFF FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM

Staff Attitudes and Beliefs about Family Involvement of
Delinquent Children in Residential Treatment Programs

As a direct care staff member of Highfields, you, along with some of your co-workers, are
being invited to participate in a focus group discussion of your work experiences with the
families Of delinquent children in residential treatment at your organization. You have been
chosen at random from the direct care staff at Highfields, Inc. The purpose of this study is to
assess the level at which staff supports family involvement, as well as the beliefs of staff about
the families of adjudicated juveniles and how these attitudes influence family involvement.

If you agree to participate, you will be asked to provide written answers to a survey entitled
“Direcgare Focus Group Interview.” The written interview consists of five questions and will
take approximately 30 minutes. After the written portion is completed, the researcher will ask
you to join other participants for a group discussion using the same questions. The entire
process will take approximately 90 minutes to complete.

There may not be any direct benefit to you from participating in the study. It is, however,
anticipated that the findings may be beneficial to the clients served at your agency and for the
field at large. It is anticipated that the findings may lead to an increase in staff/family
communication, which in turn will lead to more realistic treatment goals, and youth being
reunited with their families sooner. At the societal level, the findings may lay a fiamework for
changes in juvenile justice policy and programming and may reinforce the need for
government support of early intervention.

There is a slight risk that you may find some of the questions about your job conditions to be
sensitive or that you may not want to share your beliefs and experiences in the presence of
your colleagues. In order to minimize these risks, we will encourage all the participants not to
share the discussion with anyone outside of the group. In addition, the audiotapes of the
sessions will not be played for anyone other than the researcher during transcription. All data,
including the audiotapes, will be kept in a locked cabinet in the office of Responsible Projector
Investigator, Ellen Whipple, Ph.D. The audiotapes, the self-administered questions and the
interview notes will be destroyed upon completion of the study. The only evidence of your
participation in this study will be this signed consent form. There will be no association
between your identity and the information you provide in the interview. No identifying
information will be used in this research project. Your privacy will be protected to the
maximum extent allowable by law. Furthermore, you will receive a copy of this consent for
your personal records.

Your participation in both the written and oral portions of the focus group exercises is entirely
voluntary. Your decision either to participate or not will not affect your employment status
with Highfields, Inc. and you are free to withdraw your consent and discontinue participation
at any time. Additionally, you may refuse, without penalty, to answer any questions that make
you feel uncomfortable.

As a token of appreciation for your time and effort, you will be given a raffle ticket. Tickets

will be drawn and seven (7) prizes will be awarded: one $100 First Place Prize; two $50
Second Place Prizes; and four $25 Third Place Prizes.

123

We appreciate your willingness to participate in this project, and we are looking forward to
learning from your experiences and perspectives. If you have any questions about this study,
please contact Dr. Ellen Whipple, Responsible Project Investigator, by phone: (517)432-3740,
fax: (517) 353-3038; e-mail: whipple@msu.edu or regular mail: Michigan State University,
School of Social Work, 244 Baker Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824

If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant or if you are
dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact—anonymously, if you
wish—Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of Michigan State University’s Institutional Review
Boards (IRBs) by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, e-mail - irb@msu.edu. or
regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1046.

Your signature indicates that you willingly agree to participate in this study and that you
understand that you may withdraw your consent and discontinue your participation at any time,
without penalty.

 

Your Printed Name

 

Your Signature

 

Today’s Date

124

APPENDIX E

STAFF ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS ABOUT F AMLY
INVOLVEMENT AND REUNIFICATION SURVEY

125

Staff Attitudes and Beliefs about Family Involvement and
Reunification Survey

Name of Program/Division

Name of Unit of Unit(s)

 

Code #

 

ATTITUDES TOWARD REUNIFICATION

In this section you will be asked whether you agree that children should be returned to
their families in specific circumstances.

1. Reuniting a child (under 18 years of age) with his/her family should be a primary
program objective for what percent of the residents we serve? (Please put check
next to your response).

None
Few (1-24 %)
Some (25-49%)
Many (SO-74%)
Most or all (75-100%)

Please put one of the following numbers in the space in the space before each
statement, indicating how much you agree that in this situation the child should
return to his/her parent(s).

1- I strongly believe the child should 93 return to the family.

2- I somewhat believe the child should fl return to the family.
3- I believe the child should not return to the family.

4- I somewhat believe the child should return to the family.

5- I believe the child should return to the family

6- I strongly believe the child should return to the family.

2. Parents have been abusive toward the child and do not Show a willingness to
change.

3. Parents have a history of substance abuse but are working to change.

4. Parents abuse drugs or alcohol and do not show a willingness to change.

5. Parents have a history of drugs/alcohol abuse but are working to change.

6. Family member(s) are emotionally abusive towards the child.

126

7_Family member(s) are psychiatrically disturbed with active symptoms.
8._Parent(s) have been known to CPS and continue to be somewhat abusive.
9._Family gets into conflict with staff.

10.__Parent(s) do not want child to return home.

11._ Parent(s) has marital conflict or there is domestic violence.

12.__ Family does not want any involvement with the child.

13.__Farnily has not participated in treatment with the child.

14._ Family appears unwilling to change or accept help from the agency, that is,
the family is “help rejecting”.

15._Child’s behavior is difficult for parents to manage during visits at the agency
and/or when child is at home.

16. Child is reluctant to have parent(s) re-enter his/her life and perhaps disrupt
his/her pattern of living and relationships with other adults.

17. Children are fearful for their safety with formerly abusive parents.

18. Child’s behavior is so difficult to mange that you believe s/he presents a
danger to others if s/he returns to the community.

19. Child has a psychiatric disturbance that would make it difficult for him/her to
manage the community.

20. Child has substance abuse problem or has been violent while in placement.

21. Child has a history of frre setting, sexually abusing other children etc. and you
are concerned about his/her behavior in the community.

22. Child does not want any involvement with the family.

127

THOUGHTS ABOUT FAMILIES

This question asks you to think about the cause of the child’s problem and relative
effect of factors having to do with the child versus those that have to do with the
family.

22. Consider the typical resident you work with. In your Opinion, the problem
behaviors that made residential necessary are (Circle one number):

1 2 3 4 5
Factors totally Somewhat Factors equally Somewhat Factors totally
in the child in the child in the child in the family in family

& the family

For the next set of questions, please indicate how much you agree or disagree with
each of the statements about families by putting one of the following numbers in the

space before each statement.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
24. Most Children in residential treatment have been maltreated by their
families.

25. When parents put a child in residential treatment, they should expect to give

up most control.

26. Most of the residents could live at home if only their parents worked harder
to create a good environment for them.

27. Parents have the right to be involved in determining their child’s program

28. Most families are not good for children to return home.

29. Helping parents increase parenting skill should be an integral part of the
treatment plan.

128

30. Treating a child should mean treating a family.

31. Families can become better adjusted by involvement with their child’s
residential program.

32. Parents can learn to be more effective in raising their children.

33. Most parents sincerely want to do what is best for their children

A TTITUDES TOWARD FAMILY INVOLVEMENT

The following are suggestion that have been made about family involvement. To what
extent do you think these things should occur at Highfields? Indicate what you feel
should or should not happen, regardless of whether it happens already. Please place

one of these numbers in the space before each statement.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
34. At admission, we should have a contract or plan with each family about the

nature and extent of family involvement they will have.

35. We should try to learn about the family’s environment, values and beliefs in
order to individualize a treatment plan.

36. Before discharge, we should plan with parents for transition of their child from
Highfields back home or to another placement.

37. Parents’ preferences should be considered in developing their child’s
educational and therapeutic program.

38. We should have a Parent Advisory Board that has input into administrative
decision making.

39. There should be parents as members of the Board of Directors (other
governing body)

40. We should involve parents in fundraising.

129

41. We should try to involve parents in developing treatment plans and other case
conferences regarding their children.

42._ We should encourage parents to take their child for home visits.
43.___ We should encourage families to visit their child regularly.
44__ We should encourage families to call their child regularly.
45.___ We should encourage families to call staff regularly.

46. We should set aside a place for parents and their child to be together in
private.

47._ We should encourage family members to participate in residential activities
(e. g. preparing the dinner meal, supervision of homework) once or more per month if
possible.

48._ We should encourage family members to participate in activities in the
community with their son or daughter (e.g. shopping for clothes with child, taking
child for needed appointments).

49._ We should conduct parent training group programs on behavior management.

50. We should conduct parent training group programs for families on other topics
of interest.

51._ We should have a newsletter for families.

52___ We should take an annual survey of family opinions about the program.
53._ We should provide more treatment for parents.

54____ We should involve the children and their parents in family counseling.

55._ We should collaborate with other agencies that serve the family.

130

Advantages to family involvement Please indicate to what extent you agree that each
of the following can be an advantage when a family maintains regular involvement

with their child’s program.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly
disagree disagree agree agree

When maintains regular involvement with their child his/her program it:
56.__ Strengthens the child’s feeling of belonging to the family.

57.____ Makes the child feel loved, wanted.

58._ Strengthens the social status of the child with peers.
59.___Provides activities for the child.

60.__ Makes the treatment program better.

61 ._ Facilitates communication between family members and staff.
62._____ Maintains/increases parents’ attachment to the child.

63.___ Increases parents’ learning of more effective child rearing practices
64.__ Improves family adjustment.

65. other:

Disadvantage to family involvement Please indicate whether you agree that each of
the following disadvantages occur when a family is involved with their child’s

program.

 

l 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly
disagree disagree agree agree

When a family has regular involvement with their child in his/her program it:
66.___ Increases stress/tension in the child.
67._ Re-raises the child’s negative feelings about placement.

68._ Disappoints the child when family is unpredictable.

131

69.__ Family members model deviant behavior.

70.__ Family members clash with the staff over rules, practices.

71 ._ Family members have a negative influence on other residents.
72._ Family interferes with child’s relationship with staff.

73._ other:

 

74. Do you think that completing this survey has influenced your own attitudes toward
family involvement in any way? Please indicate whether, compared to before you
completed the survey, you feel

1 2 3 4 5 6
Less Likely Somewhat No Change Likely Somewhat More
Less Likely Likely Likely

DEMOCRAPHICS: ABOUT YOU AND YOUR JOB
75. Your age
76. Sex: M F

77 Marital status
Single (never married)

Married

Living with a partner

Divorced

Widowed
78. Do have children? No Yes (number: _)
79 What is the highest level of education you have reached?

Less than high school diploma

High School diploma

GED

College (1-3 years)
_Associate’ 3 degree
College (4 year degree)
Master’s Degree (Please circle) M.S.W., M.A., M.S.,
Advanced degree (Please circle) Ph.D., Psy.D., Ed.D.,
Other:

 

132

80. Are currently in school? No Yes
(If yes, what are studying and for what degree)

81. What is your Race/Ethnic Status?

Caucasian (not Hispanic) Native American
African American Asian American
Hispanic/Latino Other

82. How many years have you worked in human services?

83. How long have you worked at the agency? years

84. How long have you worked in current position at the agency?

85. What is your job title at the agency?

 

Training and Work with families

The following questions ask you about your training and experience in working with

families. Please circle your response.

86. The amount of training I have received to work with families before I came to

the agency is:

1._I had no formal classes, workshops, or in-services on how to work with

families; all my training was “life experience” of living in families

2._I had some classes in school that discussed how families function, but not full

courses on how to provide treatment.

3._I had a course on how to work with families at college and attended a least one

workshop on family work.

4._I had several trainings on how to work with families including how work with

family strengths in order to facilitate change.

133

87. The amount of training I have received to work with families since I have
come to the agency is:

1._I have not participated in any formal training or in—services on how to work
with families since coming to the agency.

2._I have participated in one or two agency-wide trainings which focused on
family centered practice, but have not had full courses on family treatment

3._ I have attended several trainings, seminars and workshops on family
interventions and treatment issues from family systems perspective.

4._have several trainings on Family Centered Strength Based Practice, and newer
treatment model the agency has adopted.

The following questions ask you to indicate whether you are involved in specific
family related activity. Please write in the appropriate number to next to each
statement.

Which of the following family related activities do you do during your typical
work week.

1- No- I do not do this tasks
2- Yes- I do this task

88. Talking to children about family matter

89. Taking phones calls from families

90.__ Making phone calls to families

91 ._ Arranging visits with families

92.__ Talking with families when they visit

93.__ Providing support and advice to parents

94.__ Giving advice about behavior management to families
95.__ Conducting a treatment session for parents

96.___ Conducting family therapy sessions

97.__Sending written information home to families

134

The following question asks you to estimate how much time you spend working with
families per week. Please put a check next to your response.

98. In a typical week, how much of your time is spent in working with families or
on family-related matters?

Less than an hour
1-2 hours
3-5 hours
6-15 hours
16-29 hours
30 plus hours

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THE SURVEY

135

APPENDIX F

FOCUS GROUPS EXERCISE INSTRUCTIONS AND QUESTIONS

136

Staff Attitude and Beliefs about family Involvement of Delinquent Children in
Residential Programs

Thank you for participating in this focus group exercise on staff attitudes and beliefs
about family involvement. My name is Francis Akakpo and I am a doctoral student at
Michigan State University School of Social Work. AS indicated in the consent form
audiotape, I would like to reiterate that your responses will not be attributed to any
individual in the room and you are free to leave the session at anytime or decline to
answer questions you do not feel comfortable answering.

I would to suggest the following ground rules for our discussion today after we
complete the written part of the exercise:

One person talks at a time.

Be respectfirl of differing Views.

No “side conversations”

Stay on the topic.

Confidentiality—what is said here, stays here.
“Share the air time”—let everyone contribute.

Questions:

1. What training have you had to prepare you for working with youth and families?

2. Based on your experiences, working with youth in placement, do you think that
staff members believe in family involvement as an essential component of

treatment of j uvenile delinquents?

3. In your opinion, what are some of the issues or concerns surrounding families’
involvement with their delinquent children in residential treatment?

4. What is the program or agency’s position regarding family involvement?

5. In addition to what you have previously mentioned, do you have any comments
about family involvement with juvenile delinquents in a residential treatment

program?

137

APPENDIX G

GLOSSARY OF JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM TERMINOLOGY

138

Juvenile Justice System Terminology

The following key terms relevant to children's issues and not associated with the adult
criminal justice system will be defined (Florida Juvenile Justice Foundation, 1999).

Adjudicate: To hear and decide a case; to judge. An adjudicated delinquent is a youth
who has been found guilty by a judge of committing a delinquent act. The court can
commit an adjudicated juvenile or place the juvenile on community control.

Adjudicatory Hearing: Hearing for the Court to determine whether the facts support
the allegation(s) stated in the Petition for Delinquency. The standard of proof is the
same as in a criminal trial-beyond a reasonable doubt.

Adjudication Withheld: An order is entered by the court finding that the youth
committed a delinquent act or violation of law, but adjudication of delinquency is with-
held. The court may place the child on community control or other similar community

program.

Arrest: An arrest is made when a law enforcement officer charges an adult with a
criminal act, or violation of law and takes the adult into custody based on probable
cause. A juvenile is not "arrested", but "taken into custody" under the identical
circumstances.

Case: A case is determined by selecting the most serious offense comrrritted by an
individual youth on a specific date. Thus, the number of cases in the juvenile justice
system is determined by counting only the most serious offense for which a youth is
charged on any specific date; if the youth is referred for several offenses on the same
date, this is considered one case and offenses committed by the same youth on another
date are considered another case.

Commitment: The child is committed to DJ] at a restrictiveness level defined by
statute for the purpose of exercising active control of the child.

Commitment Program: Rehabilitation program for delinquent juveniles, ranging
fi'om the least restrictive to the most restrictive. Higher restrictiveness levels compare
to incarceration within the adult system, but with rehabilitative components.

Community Control: The legal status of probation created by law and court order in
cases involving a juvenile who has been found to have committed a delinquent act.
Similar to adult probation; it includes the supervision of juveniles by a case manager.

Delinquent Act: Any action taken by a juvenile under the age of eighteen years, who

has not been previously transferred to adult criminal court and sentenced as an adult
for a felony that would be a violation~of law or ordinance if committed by an adult.

139

Delinquent Youth: A juvenile who has been found to have committed a delinquent act
(equivalent of being found guilty of a criminal offense) by a judge. The juvenile may
be adjudicated delinquent or adjudication may be withheld by the court.

Detention Care: The temporary care of a juvenile in secure, non-secure or home
detention, pending a court adjudication or disposition or execution of a court order.

Detention Center: Facilities statewide, used primarily as a pre-disposition holding
facility for serious offenders. By law, offenders may be held twenty-one days prior to
their adjudicatory hearing and up to fifteen days following an order of adjudication. A
juvenile may be held up to fifteen days following the disposition of the case, pending
residential placement if the department has reason to believe that placement will be
available within the fifteen daytime period. High risk and maximum risk offenders are
held until placement in a commitment program. Detention is NOT a commitment
program, and compares to a jail in the adult system.

Diversion] Alternative to Court: A program designed to divert or keep a juvenile
from entering the system and as an alternative to court; used at intake prior to adjudica-
tion.

Intake: Initial acceptance and screening of the child by DJJ. The emphasis of intake is
on diversion and the least restrictive available services.

Intervention: Programs or services that interrupt the delinquency process and prevent
a youth from penetrating further into the juvenile justice system.

Juvenile/youth/child: Any unmarried person under the age of eighteen alleged to be
dependent, in need of services, or from a family in need of services, or any married or
unmarried person who is charged with a violation of law occurring prior to the time
that person reached the age of eighteen years. NOTE: The juvenile court has jurisdic-
tion in delinquency cases until the youth's nineteenth birthday, or until the youth/adult
completes restitution payment as ordered by the juvenile comt.

Juvenile Found to Have Committed a Delinquent Act: A juvenile who is found by a
court to have committed a violation of law or to be in direct or indirect contempt of
court, except that this definition shall not include an act constituting contempt of court
arising out of a dependency (child abuse, neglect or abandonment) proceeding.

Outcome: The status of a juvenile in relation to delinquent behavior after completion
of a program or services, and the extent of the change in modifying the original condi-
tions that led to the juvenile being referred for services.

Prevention: All prevention efforts are an investment in public safety and are those
efforts that help prevent a juvenile from entering the juvenile justice system as a delin-
quent. Prevention includes arbitration, diversionary or mediation programs, and

140

community service work or other treatment available subsequent to a child committing
a delinquent act.

Serious or Habitual Juvenile Offender: A juvenile who has been found to have
committed a violation of law, in the case currently before the court, and who meets at
least one of the following criteria:

1. The juvenile is at least 13 years old at the time of the disposition for the current
offense and has been adjudicated on the current offense for arson, sexual battery,
robbery, kidnapping, aggravated child abuse, aggravated assault, aggravated
stalking, murder, manslaughter, unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a
destructive device or bomb, armed burglary, aggravated battery, lewd or
lascivious assault or act in the presence of a child, carrying, displaying, using,
threatening, or attempting to use a weapon or firearm during the commission of a
felony.

2. The juvenile is at least 13 years old at the time of the disposition, the current
offense is a felony, and the child has previously been committed at least two
times to a delinquency commitment program.

3. The juvenile is at least 13 years old and is currently committed for a felony
offense and transferred from a moderate risk or high risk residential commitment
placement.

Status Offenders: Status Offenders are defined as juveniles, who have been accused
of, or charged with, conduct which would not, under law, be an offense if committed
by an adult such as truancy, running away or underage drinking.

Taken into Custody: The status of a juvenile when temporary physical control over
the child is attained by a person authorized by law, pending the juvenile's release,
detention, placement, or other disposition as authorized by law. This is similar to an
adult arrest.

141

REFERENCES

142

REFERENCES

Ackroyd, S. & Hughes, J.A. (1992). Data Collection in Context New York, NY:
Longrnan.

Alexander, L.B. & Dore, M.M. (1999). Making the Parents as Partners Principle or
Reality: Role of Alliance. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 8(3), 255-270.

Allen, R.I. & Petr, CG. (1996). Toward Developing Standards and Measurements for
F amily-Centered Practice in Family Support Programs. In G. H.S. Singer, L.E.
Powers & A.L. Olson (Eds.), Redefining Family Support: Innovamn in Public-
Private Partnership (pp.57-86). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

 

Alston, M. & Bowles, W. (2003). Research for Social Workers: An Introduction to
Methods New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.

American Bar Association and Institute of Judicial Administration. (1980). Standards
for Juvenile Justice: A Summary Analysis Cambridge: OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice
Clearing-House.

Anderson, GR. (2001). Formal and Informal Kinship Care: Supporting the Whole
Family. In E. Walton, P. Sandau-Beckler & M. Mannes (Eds.), Balancing Family-
Centered Services and Child Well-Being: ExplorinLIssues in Policy. Practice,
Theory and Resear_cl_r, (pp.l79-196). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Armstrong, S.G. (2001). Private Vs Public ngration Juvenile Justice Correctional
Facilities. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publishing, LLC.

Ashby, C.M. & United States General Accounting Office. (2003). Child Welfare and
Juvenile Justice: Several Factors influence the Placement of Children Solely
Obtain Mental Health Services. From Connect to Online Resource-all users.
http://purl.acccssgpogov/GP()/I.PS3 7663.

 

Aubel, J. (1994). Guidelines for Studies Using Interview Techniques. Geneva:
International Labour Office.

Baker, B.L. & Blacher, J. (1992). Toward Meaningful Family Involvement in Out-of-
Home Placement settings. Mental Retardation, 30, 3543.

Baker, B.L., Heller, T.L., Blacher, J. & Pfeiffer, S. (1995). Staff Attitudes Toward

Family Involvement in Residential Centers for Children. Psychiatric Services.
46(1) 60-65.

143

Bandura, A. (1969). Social-Learning Theory of Identifactory Processes Handbook of
Socialization Theory Resea_rc_l_1 D. A Goslin. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally and
Company: 213-262.

Banes, W. (1998). Family Participation in Policymaking Bodies. Focal Point: A
National Bulleting on Family Support and Children mental Health, 2(1) 1-10

Barker, R.L. (2003). The Social W011; Dienonay (5th Ed). Washington, DC: NASW
Press.

Bartollas, C. (2000). Juvenile Delinquency (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.

Bartollas, C. & Miller, 8.]. (2001). Juvenile Ju_stice in America. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle
River: Prentice Hall.

Bates, B.C., English, D.J. & Kouidou-Giles, S. (2001). Residential Treatment and its
Alternatives: A Literature Review. Child and Youth Care Forum, 26(1), 7-51.

Bazemore, G. & Umbreit, M. (2001). Comparison of F our Restorative Conferencing
Models. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
Office of Juvenile Justice Programs, US Department of Justice.

Bazemore, G., Zaslaw, J .G. & Reister, D. (2005). Behind the Walls and Beyond:
Restorative Justice, Instrumental Communities, and Effective Residential
Treatment. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 53-73.

Bettelheim, B. (1974). At Home for the Heait New York, NY: Knof.

Binder, A., Geis, G. & Bruce, D.D.J. (2001) Juvenile Delinquency: Historical, Cultural
and Legal Perspectives (3rd ed.) Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co.

Bogenschneider, K. & Corbett, T. (2004) Building Enduring Family Policies in the 21St
Century: The as Prologue? In M. Coleman & L.H. Ganong (Eds.), The Handbook

of Contempogrjy Families: Consideringthe [fist Contemplating the Future.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bogrov, M. & Crowel, R. L. (1996). “Community Services Systems for Children and
Adolescents”. In W.R. Breaky (Ed.), Integted Mental Health Services (pp.353-
369). New York: Oxford University Press.

Britt, C.L. & Gottfredson, M.R., (Eds). (2003).Control Theories of Crime and
Delinquency (Vol.12). Brunswick and London: Transactions Publishers.

144

Brock, L., Burrell, J. & Tulipano, T. (2006). NDT AC Issue Brief: Family Involvement.
National Evaluation and Technical Assistance Center for the Education of
Children and Youth Who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At Risk.

Bronfenbrenner, Urie. (1979).The Ecological Development: Experiments by Naalre
and Desigr_l_. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Butts, J .A. & Harvell, A.V. (1998). Delinquents or Criminals: Policy Options for
Young Oflenders. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Carey, J .T. & McAnany, PD. (1984). Introduction to Juvenile Delinquency: Youth and
Law. Englewood: Prince-Hall, Inc.

Carlo, P. (1985). The Children in Residential Treatment Center as a Living Laboratory
for Family Members: A Review of Literature and implications for Practice. Care
Quarterly, 14(3), 156-170.

Cavanaugh, T. (1998). Adopting New Values for Courts: What is Restorative Justice?
The Court Manager, 13(2/3), 24-27.

Coleman, F. C. (1999). Staff Attitudes Toward Family Involvement and Reunification
in Residential Treatment Center. Department of Psychology Pace University.

Collins, T.M. & Collins, B.G. (1994). Children and Adolescent Mental Health:
Building a System Care. Journal of Counseling and Child Development, 72, 239-
243.

Cowger, C.D. & Menon, G. (2001). Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Methods.
In B.A. Thyer, The Handboqk of Social Work Research Methog. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cunningham, P.B., Henggler, S.W., Brondino, M.J. & Pickrel, S.G. (1999). Testing
Underlying Assumptions of Family Empowerment Perspectives. Journal of Child
and Family Services, 8(4), 437-449.

Curry, L., Fischer, J ., Reifinan, A. & Harris, K. (2003). Family Factors, Self-Esteem,
Peer InvolvemenL and Adolescent Alcohol Misus;e, Lubbock, Texas: Texas Tech.
University.

Dawson, RD. (1990). The Future of Juvenile Justice: Is It Time to Abolish the
System? Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 81, 136-155.

Denzin, D.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (2003). The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative

Research. In D. K Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collectingand Interpreting
Qualitative Materials (2"‘1 Ed.), 1-45. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

145

Denzin, D.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1988). Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative
Material. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Doom, B.M.C. (1999). A Comparison of the Personalized System of Instruction to
Direct Instruction in Training of Direct-Care Residential Stafl in the Use of
Social Attention and Planned Ignoring. Unpublished Dissertation, West Virginia
University, Morgantown.

Downs, S.W., Moore, E., McFadden, E.J., Michaud, S.M. & Costin, LB. (2004). Child
Welfare and Mly Services: Policies agd Practices (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson
Education, Inc.

Engel, L., Howe, M., Fahey, J. & Finn, J. (2006). Criminal and Juvenile Justice Policy
BriefingBoofik, Boston, MA: Crime and Justice Institute.

 

Family Independence Agency. (1997). Maxey Model. Lansing, MI: Bureau of Juvenile
Justice.

Family Independence Agency. (2003). Information Packet. Lansing, MI: Bureau of
Juvenile Justice.

Family Independence Agency. (2004). Report on W.J. Maxey Facility. Lansing, MI:
Bureau of Juvenile Justice.

Faust, F. L. & Brantingham, P.J. (1974). Juvenile Justice Philosophy: Readings, Cases,
Comments. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.

Feld, B.C. (Ed.). (1990). Criminology and the Juvenile Court: A Research Agenda for
the 19905. New York: Lexington Books.

Finkelstein, NE. (1981). F amily-Centered Care-The Children’s Institution, from
Living Center to a Center for Change. In A.N. Maluccio & P.A. Sinanoglu (Eds.),
The Chaim: of Partnership: Working with Parents of Children in Foster Care.
New York: Child Welfare League, Inc.

Fitzharris, Timothy L. (1985). The Foster Children of California: Profile of 10,000
Children in Residential Care, Sacremento, CA: Children’s service Foundation.

Flieger, F. (Ed.) (1995) Encyclopedia of Sociafllork (19“ Volume 1), Washington,
DC: NASW Press.

Fontana, A. & Frey, J .H. (2003). The Interview: From Structured Questions to
Negotiated Text. In D. K Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and
Interpreting Qualitative Materiafi (2"d Ed.), 61-106, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

146

Friedman, BB. (1999). Ecological Perspective Cookbook: Recipes for Social Work—era,
Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Gannon, T. A. (1996). Supported Living Direct Services Personnel Training
Competencies, Cincinnati: University Affiliated Center for Developmental
Disorders.

Garbarino, J. & Kelly, AP. (1986). An Introduction to Troubled Youth in Troubled
Families. In J. Garbarino, C. Schellenbach & J. M. Sebes (Eds.)., Troubled Youth.
Troubled Families (pp. 3-26), Hawthorne, NY: Aldine Publishing Company.

Germain, C.B. & Gitterman, A. (1996). The Life Model of Social Work Practice:
Advances in Theory & Practice. (2“‘1 ed.). New York: Columbia University.

Ginsberg, L.H. (2001). Social Work Evalauation: Principles and Methods. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.

Grant, B. (1998). The Impact of a F arnily History of Alcoholism on the Relationship
Between Age at Onset Use and DSM-IV Alcohol Dependence. Alcohol and
Health Research World, 22(2), 144-147.

Gupta, R.A., Kelleher, K.J., Pajer, K., Stevens, J. & Cuellar, A.(2005). Delinquent
Youth in Correction: Medicaid and Reentry into the Community. Pediatrics, 115,
1077-1083.

Harvell, S., Rodas, B. & Hendley, L. (2004). Parental Involvement in Juvenile Justice:
Prospects and Possibilities. The Center for Research on Children in the US.
(CROCUS) & The Georgetown University Department of Psychology.

Hawkins, J .D., Herenkohl, T., Farrington, D.P. & Harachi, T. W. (1998). A Review of
Predictors of Youth Violence. In R. Loeber & D.P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious
Violent Offenders: Risflactors grad Successful Intervention_s_, Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Henggler, S. & Schoenwald, S. (1998). Multisysternic Treatment Of Antisocial
Behavior in children and Adolescents, New York: Guilford Press.

Herbert, M. & Harper-Dorton, K.V. (2002). Working with Childrem Adolescents. and
their Families (3rd ed.), Chicago: Lyceum Books, Inc.

Hess, A.G., Clement, P.F. (Eds). (1993). History of Juvenile Delin_quency: A

Collection of Essays on Crime Committed by Young Offenders, in History and
Selected Countries. Aelan: Scienta Verlag.

 

Highfields (2005), Agency Information Package.

147

Highfields (2006), Residential/Campus Operation Manual, Rev. 06F.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hirschi, T. & Gottfiedson, MR. (2003). Punishment of Children fi'om the Perspective
of Control Theory. Control Theories of Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 12, 150-
160, Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers.

Howell, J .C., Kelley, M.R., Palmer, J. & Mangum, R.L (2004). Integrating Child
Welfare, Juvenile Justice, and Other Agencies in a Continuum of Services. Child
Welfare League of America, LXXII,(2), 143-156.

Institute of Medicine. (1989). Research on Children fll Adolescent with Mam,
Behavioral, and Developmental Diaorders: Mobilizing a National Initiative.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

J enson, J .M. & Whittaker, J .K. (1989a). Parental Involvement in Children’s
Residential Treatment: From Placement to Aftercare. In E. Balcerkzak (ed.).
Group Care of Children: Tran_sitions Towards the Year 2000 (pp.l45-166).
Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.

J enson, J .M. & Whittaker, J .K. (1989b). Partners in Care: Involving Parents in
Children’s Residential Treatment. In R.D. Lyman, P.D. & S. Gabe] (eds).
Residential and Inpatient Treatment of Children & Adolescents (pp. 207-227).

J ivanjee, P. (1999). Parent Perspectives on Family Involvement in Therapeutic Foster
Care. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 8(4), 451-461.

J ivanjee, P., Friesen, B.J., Kruzich, J., Robinson, A. & Pullman, M. (2002). Family
Participation in Systems of Care: Frequently asked Questions (and Some
Answers). C WTAC Updates, The Newsletter of the Cathie Wright Technical
Assistance Center, Sacremento, CA: California Institute of Mental Health,. 5(1),
1-8.

Johnson, M.M. (1999). Multiple Dimensions of Family-Centered Practice in
Residential Group Care: Implication Regarding the Roles of Stakeholders.
Child and Youth Forum, 22(2), 123-141.

Juang, L. P. & Silbereisen, R.K. (1999). Supportive Parenting and Adolescent
Adjustment across Time in Former East and West Germany. Journal of
Adolescence, 22, 719-736.

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, 42 US. C. 5601 (1974).

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2001 (2001).

148

Knitzer, J. (1982). Unclaimed Children: The Failure of Public Responsibility to
Children and Adolescents in Need of Mental Health Services. Washington, DC:
Children’s Defense Fund.

Kopiec, K., F inkelhor, D. & Wolak, J. (2004). Which Juvenile Crime Victims Get
Mental Health Treatment? Child Abuse and Neglect, 28, 45-59.

Kruzich, J. M., Jivanjee, P., Robison, A., Friesen, B. J. (2003). Family Caregivers’
Perceptions of Barriers and Supports Participation in Their Children’s Out-of-
Home Treatment, Psychiatric Services 54(1 1), 1513-15 18.

Kumpfer, KL. (1999). Strengthening America’s Families: Exemplary Parenting and
Family Strategies for Delinquency Prevention. Washington, DC: US. Department
of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.

Leone, PE. (1990). Understanding Troubled and TroublingYouth, Thousand Oaks
CA: Sage Publications.

Lou, H. (1927). The Juvenile Courts in the United States, Charlotte, NC: University of
North Carolina Press.

Lundman, R.J. (2001). Prevention and Control of Juvenile Delinquency (Third
Edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lyman, R.D. & Campbell, NR. (1996). Treating Adolescents in Residential and
Inpatient Settings, Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.

Lyons, J .S., Terry, R, Martinovich, Z., Peterson, J. & Bouska, B. (2001). Outcome
Trajectories for Adolescents in Residential Treatment: A Statewide Evaluation.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 10(3), 333-345.

Maluccio, A.N. (1981 ). The Emerging Focus on Parents in Placement. In P.A.
Sinanoglu & A.N. Mallacio (Eds.), Parents in Placement: Perspectives a_n_(j
Proggarns (pp.5-l4), Washington DC: Child Welfare League, Inc.

Mann, R.M. (Ed.), (2000). Juvenile Crime aad Delinquency: A Turn of Century
Reader, Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.

Mannes, M. (2000). Well-Being and Family-Centered Services. In E. Walton, P.
Sandau-Beckler & M. Mannes (Eds.), Balancing Family-Centered Services anal,
Child Well-BeingaExmorirg Issues in Policy, PracticL and Research (pp.128-
154). New York: Columbia University Press.

Mayer, M.F. (1960). The Parental Figures in Residential Treatment. Social Services
Review, 34, 373-285.

149

Mears, D. P. & Travis, J. (2004). The Dimensions, Pathways and Consequences of
Youth Reentry (Policy). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Mendel, R. A. (2000). Less Juvenile Crime, What Works—and Doesn’t Work. Hype,
More Work: Reducing, (1-89). Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.

Miller, F. W., Dawson, R.O., Dix, G.E. & Pamas, R. I. (1976). The Juvenile Justice
Process (2"d ed.), Minneola, NY: The Foundation Press, Inc.

Mooradian, J .K. (2003). Disproportionate Confinement of A frican-American Juvenile
Delinquents. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.

Morehouse, E. & Tobler, NS. (2000). Preventing and Reducing Substance Abuse
Among Institutionalized Adolescents, Adolescence 35(137) 1-28.

Muisener, PP. (1994). Understanding and Treating Adolescent Substance Abuse.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication, Inc.

Musick, D. (1995). An Introduction to the Sociolggy of Juvenile Delinquency. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.

National Center on Addition and Substance Abuse 2004). Washington, DC, US
Department of Justice.

National Council on Disability (U .S.) (2003). Addressing the Needs of Youth with
Disabilities in the Juvenile Justice System: The Current Status of Evidence-Based
Research. Washington, DC: National Council on Disability.

Neurnan, L.H. & Wiegand, B. (2000). Criminal Justice Research Methods: Qualitative
and Mtitative Apprgches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Nickerson, A.B., Brooks, J .L., Colby, S.A., Rickert, J .M. & Salamone, El (2006).
F anrily Involvement in Residential Treatment: Staff, Parent, and Adolescent
Perspectives, Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15(6), 681-694.

Northey, W. & Hunt, P. (2000). Involving Families of Youth Who have Contact with
the Juvenile Justice System: The Ecosystemic Natural Wrap-Around Model.
National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice.

Northey, W., Primer, V. & Christensen, L. (1997). Promoting Justice in the Delivery of
Services to Juvenile Delinquents: The Ecosystemic Natural Wrap-Around Model.
Child Adolescent Social Work Journal, 14(1), 5-22.

Nye, F. (1958). Family Relationships and Delinquent Bahavior, New York: Wiley Pub.

150

Osher, T. & Hunt, P. (2002). Involving Family of Youth Who are in Contact with the
Juvenile Justice System, National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice.

Packer, H. (1968). The Limits of the Criminal Sanction, Palo Alto, CA: Stanford
University Press.

Patton, MO. (1987). How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation, Newbury, MA:
Sage Publications.

 

Public Act of 1973, Michigan Legislature (1973). Administrative Rule: 400.1 et seq of
Michigan Administrative Code, Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 2 of 2008.
Legislative Council, State of Michigan.

Rankin, J.H. & Wells, LE. (1996). The Preventive Effects of Family on Delinquency.
In R.J. Berger (Ed.). The Sociology of Juvenile Delinquency (2nd ed.), pp.201-
2 1 7), Chicago: Nelson-Hall Inc.

Roberts, AR. (1989). Juvenile Ju_stice: Policies, Programs, and Services. Chicago:
Dorsey Press.

Roberts, AR. (1998). An Introduction and Overview of Juvenile Justice. In A. R
Roberts (Ed.), Juvenile Jastice: Policies, Programs. and Services (2“‘1 ed.), pp. 3-
20). Chicago: Nelson-Hall, Inc.

Rosen, M. (1999). Treating Child Welfare Children in Residential Setting, Youth
Services Review, 21(8), 657-676.

Rubin, A. & Babbie, E. (2001). Research Methods for Social Work, Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.

Ryan, Joseph P. (2006). Dependent Youth in Juvenile Justice: Do Positive Peer Culture
Programs Works for Victims of Child Maltreatment? Research on Social Wofirk
Practice, Vol. 16(5), pp. 511-519, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Scholte, E. M. & van der Ploeg, J. D. (2000). Exploring Factors Governing Successful
Residential Treatment of Youngsters with Serious Behavioural Difficulties:
Finding from a Longitudinal Study in Holland. In Childhood, Volume 7 (2):
pp. 129-153, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Shelden, R.G. & Hussong, M. (2003). Juvenile Crime, Adult Adjudication, and Death
Penalty: Draconian Policies Revisited. Justice Policy Journal: Analyzing
Criminal and Juvenile Justice Issues and Policies 1(2), 1-22.

Shinke, P.S., Botvin, G.J. & Orlandi, M.A. (1997). Substance Abu_se in Children an_d

Adolescents: Education and Intervention, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.

151

Shireman, J. (2003). Critical Issues in Child Welfaae, New York: Columbia University
Press.

Shoemaker, DJ. (2000). Theories of Delinquency: An Examination of Explan_ations_o_f_‘
Delinquent Behavior (4th ed.), New York: Oxford University Press.

Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J. & Wei K. (2004).Census of Juvenile in Residential
Placement Databook, Retrieved 3/10/2005, from
http://oiipd.ncirsorg/oistatbb/cirp/asp/StateiFacility.aag.

Siegel, L.J. (1992).Criminology: Theories, Pattemflnd Typologies, St. Paul, MN:
West Publishing Company.

Siegel, L.J. & Senna, J .J . (1994). Juvenile Delinauency: Theory. Practice and La_v_v. (5th
ed.), St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.

Sinanoglu, P.A. (1981). Working with Parents: Selected Issues and Trends as
Reflected in Literature. In A.N. Maluccio & P.A Sinanoglu (Eds.), The Challenge
of Partnership: Workarg with Parents of Children in Foster Cara, pp. 3-21,
New York: Child Welfare League, Inc.

Snyder, H.N. (2001). Epidemiology of Official Offending. In R. Loeber & D.P.
F arrington (Eds). Child Delinquents: Development. Intervention, and Service
Needs, pp. 25—46, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Snyder, H.N. (2005). Juvenile Arrests 2003 (Bulletin NCJ 209735), Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Snyder, H.N. & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile Oflenders and Victims: 1999 National
Report, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Stein, J. R. (1995). Residenaial Treatment of Adolescent and Children Chicago:
Nelson-Hall Publishers.

Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Loeber, R., F arrington, D.P. & Wikstrom, P.O.H. (2002). Risk
and Promotive Effects in the Explanation of Persistent Serious Delinquency in

Boys, Journal of Consulting Psychology, 70(1 11-123).

Streib, V.L. (1978). Juvenile Juatice in America, Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press
Corp.

Streib, V.L. (1999). The Juvenile Death Penalty Today: Death Sentences and
Executions for Juvenile Crimes, January 1973-June 1999.Retrieved on
10/20/2005 from http://www_.law.onu.edu/fafcultystreib/iuvedeathpdf.

152

 

Sutton, J .R. (1988). Stubborn Children: ControlliagDelinquency in United States.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Thornton, W.E., Jr. & Voigt, L. (1992). Delinquency and Justice (3rd ed.), New York:
McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Tracy, E. M. (2001) Intervention. In Walton, E., Sandau-Beckler, P. & Mannes, M.
(Eds) Balancing Family-Centered Services and Child Well-Being: Exploriag
Issues in Policy. Practice. Theory, and Research. New York: Columbia University

Press.

Trojanowicz, R.C., Morash, M. & Schram, P. (2001). Juvenile Delinquency: Concepts
and Control (6th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Tuell, J .A. (2002). Juvenile Oflenders and Death Penalty: Is Justice Served?
Washington, DC: Child Welfare of America, Inc.

Ungar, M. (2002). A Deeper, More Social Ecological Social Work Practice, Social
Service Review 76(3) 480-497.

Unger, D.G., McLeod, L.E., Brown, M.B. & Tressell, P.A. (2000). The Role of the
Family Support in Interpersonal Conflict and Adolescent Academic Achievement,
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9(2), 191-202.

United States Department of Health and Human Services. (1983). Children and
Adolescent Services System. Bethesda: The National Institute of Mental Health
(N IMH).

United States Department of Justice. (1996). Combating Violence and Delinquency:
The National Juvenile Justice Action Plan. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

United States Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2001). Juvenile
Transfers to Criminal Court in Florida [paper, electronic resource] the I 994
Reforms. [Washington, DC]: US Dept. of Justice, office of Justice Programs,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

van der Ploeg, J .D., Smit, M. (1992). Theory and Practice. In J .D. van der Ploeg,
P.M. van den Berth, M. Klomp, E.J. Knorth & M. Smit (Eds.), Vulnerable Youth
in Residential Care (1St ed.), pp. 9-34, Leuven, Belgium: Garant Publishers.

Vito, G.F. & Simonsen, CE. (2004). Juvenile Justice Today. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc

Vold, G.B., Bernard, T.J. & Snipes, J.B. (1998). Theoretical Criminology (4th ed.).
Oxford: Oxford Press.

153

Walgrave, L. (2002). Not Punishing Children, but Committing Them to Restore. In I.
Weijers & A. Duff(Eds.), Punishing Juveniles: Principles and Critiques. pp.93-
114, Oxford, Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.

Walsh, K.K., Kastner, T.A., Green, R.G. (2003). Cost Comparisons of Community and
Institutional Residential Setting: Historical Overview of Selected Research
Mental Retardation, 41 (2), 1 03-1 22.

Walton, E., Sandau-Beckler, P. & Mannes, M. (Eds). (2001). Balancing F amily-
Centered Services and Child Well-Being: Explorinagklssues in Policy, Practice;
Theory, and Research, New York: Columbia University Press.

Weijers, 1., Duff, A. (Eds). (2002). Punishing Juveniles: Principles and Critiques.
Oxford. Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.

Welch, K. (1998). Overview of Social Control Theories: Two Major Theories of
Travis Hirschi, from hgp://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/hirschi.htm.

Whipple, E.E. & Finton, SE. (1995). The Psychological Maltreatment by Siblings: An
Unrecognized Form of Abuse, Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 12(2),
135-146.

Whipple, E.E. & Fullrner, M. E. (1997). “A Parenting Program for Families with
Preschoolers at Risk of Physical Abuse, Directions in Mental Health and
Counseling, 2, 31—46.

Whipple, E.E. & Richey, CA. (1997). Crossing the Line from Physical Discipline to
Child Abuse: How much is too Much? Child Abuse & Neglect 21, 431-444.

Whipple, E.E. & Webster-Stratton, C. (1991). The Role of Parental Stress in Physically
Abusive Families. Child Abuse and Neglect, Volume 15, 279-291.

Whittaker, J .K. (1979). Caring for Troubled Children, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
Inc., Publishers.

Whittaker, J .K. (1981). Family Involvement in Residential Treatment: A Support
System for Parents. In A.N. Maluccio & P.A Sinanoglu (Eds.), The grallenge of
P_artnership: Working with Parents of Children in Foster Care, pp. 67-88,

New York: Child Welfare League, Inc.

Wierson, M., & Forehand, R. (1992). F arme stressors and adolescent
functioning: A consideration of models for early and middle adolescents.
Behavior Therapy, 23, 671-688.

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (2001, 2002). Definition of Parens Patric.

154

Wright, J .P. & Cullen, F .T. (2001). Parental Efficacy and Delinquent Behavior: Do
Control and Support Matter? Criminology, 39(3), 677-705.

Zedner, L. (2002). Victims. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan & R. Reiner (Eds.), The Oxford
Handbook of Criminology (3rd ed.), pp.419-456, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Zehr, H. (1990). A New Focus for Crime and Justice, Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.

Zimmerman, DP. (1990). Notes on the History of Adolescent Inpatient and
Residential Treatment. Adolescence, 25(97), 9-3 8.

155

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Ilfllllllfflfllslllllflzl'ljflljlllflfmnll