(s
75..

 

Date

0-7639

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

The Diversion of Juvenile Delinquents:
A first step toward the dissemination
of a successful innovation

presented by

Craig H. Blakely

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D: degree in Psycholoqv

 

12/ 1 0/80

 

._- . .‘W ‘4. .

 

 

   

       
     

flow“!
Wfllflmflwm a

 

   

1‘5LWA

1 ' ‘ , I

OVERDUE FINES:

- 25¢ per day per item
‘14.?“ ‘ RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS:
”A _ Place in book return to remove
. r -..‘.\1£’”, ' charge from circulation record:

{omitsagdw

amm’m .22-.

‘sUV'm

it“,
FEBIOZM
02090

MN

 

 

THE DIVERSION OF JUVENILE DELINQUENTS:
A FIRST STEP TOWARD THE DISSEMINATION
OF A SUCCESSFUL INNOVATION

By

Craig H. Blakely

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1981

ABSTRACT

THE DIVERSION OF JUVENILE DELINQUENTS:
A FIRST STEP TOWARD THE DISSEMINATION
OF A SUCCESSFUL INNOVATION

By
Craig H. Blakely

Since the juvenile court came under critical attack in the early
1960's, diversion of juvenile offenders from formal system involvement
has become an increasingly frequent occurrence. Diversion typically occurs
at some point between formal adjudication and disposition. Frequently
alternative community intervention strategies are implemented.

Although reports of the effectiveness of diversion programs in the
literature have been mixed, the Adolescent Diversion Project has been a
specific example of a successful diversion program. Given the inconclu-
sive evidence noted in the literature supporting diversion programs in
general, the degree to which the diversion component was a core component
in this program became a critical question. This study examined the
extent to which previous successful outcome results could be replicated
within the structure of the juvenile court system. Could the intervention
model itself account for the results without actually diverting the youth
from the formal system?

Juvenile offenders were referred from the county juvenile court and
were randomly assigned to experimental or court treatment as usual control

conditions. Youth who were assigned to the experimental conditions were

Craig H. Blakely

randomly assigned to work on a one—to-one basis with university under-
graduates who received extensive training and supervision. The students
spent six to eight hours a week working with assigned youth. Two primary
intervention strategies were employed. Behavioral contracting was used
to clarify and modify interpersonal contingencies operating between the
youth and significant others. In addition, child advocacy techniques
were implemented in an attempt to insure the welfare of the youth by
protecting his/her rights and helping to locate or generate the requisite
resources to fulfill the youth's unmet needs and wants.

Experimental youth and volunteers were also randomly assigned to one
of two intervention conditions. Volunteers in the diversion condition
continued to implement the intervention strategies with diverted youth
in a manner practiced by previous project volunteers. Volunteers in the
court condition were trained by project staff in the identical interven-
tion strategies. However, they were supervised by a court staff member.
The degree to which the different supervision strategies affected the
intervention process constituted the primary independent variable that
distinguished the two intervention conditions.

Multiple measures were used to evaluated the effectiveness of the
intervention conditions on several dimensions. Were differential archival
outcome results (court, police, school) observed? Did the volunteers
intervene in a similar fashion? How did the experience impact on the
volunteers?

Process data indicated that the volunteers in the court condition
substantially altered the intervention model during implementation. Their
intervention goals seemed considerably different than goals of volunteers

in the diversion condition. These findings were confirmed by the results

Craig H. Blakely

of the volunteer measures. Volunteers in the court condition did not
retain as much of the training material, did not value the training
experience, viewed delinquents in a negative light, and were much more
likely to recommend punitive intervention strategies than volunteers in
the diversion condition.

Outcome results suggested that court condition youth were more likely
to recidivate and receive a more serious dispositional decision regard-
less of the seriousness of the offense. Degree of active system involve-
ment appeared related to ultimate penetration into the system following
subsequent recidivism.

Results pointed to the fact that volunteers trained in a specific
delinquency intervention model drastically altered the implementation of
that model as a function of the supervision employed during intervention.
Further interpretations of the findings and implications for diversion
research and social change strategies in general were discussed. Likely

directions for future research efforts were also noted.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

As with any longitudinal research effort, successful completion is
dependent upon the help and cooperation of a great number of peers, com-
panions and participants. Foremost was the assistance provided by my
committee chairman, Bill Davidson. His stimulation during my under-
graduate years was instrumental in my pursuing a graduate career in the
social sciences. His support and friendship during my graduate career
were invaluable. The expertise offered by my other committee members,
Neal Schmitt, Ralph Levine, Esther Fergus, and Glenn Shippee was also
appreciated. Their constructive comments made for a better end product.

I feel very fortunate to have worked with the Adolescent Diversion
Project. The atmosphere is very clearly that of a home away from home.
The example, companionship and encouragement afforded by those staff
members that have departed before me, Ricki Kantrowitz, Jim Emshoff,
and Tina Mitchell, made the entire process much easier than it might have
been. A special thanks goes to Isa Fernandez for her company, support
and editorial comments during the hectic three week interval immediately
preceding orals when time was clearly running out. A large number of
staff members were directly involved in the implementation of this
project. John Jeppesen and Tina Mitchell assisted in the supervision
of students. Debbie Bybee and John Jeppesen collected the outcome data.
Jeana Chodakowski, Julie Parisian, Cheryl Saylor and Karen Badger

supervised the interviewers’ collection of process data. Without

ii

their assistance this project would never have materialized.

A special appreciation goes to John Cole, the court intake referee
who supervised the court group. I am amazed even today that he was able
to juggle the political pressures at the court and retain his job despite
the added pressure brought about by his involvement in this project.

My friends, who provided support, encouragement and diversion through-
out this trying experience, might only guess at how important their con-
tributions have been. I'd especially like to thank Barb Schulz whose
love and companionship were always there when they were needed most and
my parents, Jane and Paul Blakely, whose support and encouragement have
been extremely valued.

And last, but not least, my sincere appreciation goes to the under-
graduate volunteers and the youth and their families directly involved
in the project. It is my hope that the benefits received by these
individuals exceeded the picture drawn by the aggregate conclusions

here.

T!
‘I

V‘-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ..........................
LIST OF FIGURES ..........................
LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . ....................
INTRODUCTION ...........................

Present Perspective .....................
Historical Perspective ....................
Historical Development of the Juvenile Justice System. .

Critique of the Juvenile Justice System ..........
Theories of Delinquency ..................
Individual differences .................
Sociological theories .................
Behavioral theories ..................
Labeling theory ....................

The Need for an Alternative .................
Community Based Intervention Alternative . . . . .....
Diversion Alternative ...................
The Use of Nonprofessionals as Change Agents .......
Rationale for the Present Line of Research ..........
The Adolescent Diversion Project .............
Innovation Dissemination .................
The Current Research .....................
Research Questions ....................

METHOD ..............................

Context of the Research ...................
Subjects ...........................
Youth Referred ......................
Nonprofessional Volunteers ‘ ................
Trainers/Supervisors ...................
Design ............................
Procedure ..........................
-Recruitment of Students ..................
Selection of volunteers ................
Selection of research assistants ............

Youth Referral ......................
Assignment of Youth to Student Volunteers .........
Volunteer Training ....................
Diversion training ...................

Court training .....................

iv

Page

31
31
32
33
37
37

Page

Interviewer Training ................... 48
Supervision ........................ 50
Diversion SUPGVVISIOH ................. 50
Court supervision . . . . .............. '. 5T
Intervention . ...................... 52
Diversion intervention ................. 52
Court intervention. . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 55
Measures ........................... 56
Archival Measures ..................... 56
Police records ..... . . .............. 57
Court records ..................... 57
School records .................... . 57
Interview Based Measures ................. 58
Life domain measures .................. 59
Self-reported delinquency measure ........... 59
Labeling measures ................. . . 60
Police reference ................. . 61

Court reference ................... 6l
Project reference. L ................ 6l

Label acceptance/rejection ............. 63
Process measures .................... 63
Amount of time ................... 66
Volunteer contacts ................. 66
Recreational activities ............... 66

Home involvement focused on changing the parent. . . 66

Home involvement focused on changing the youth . . . 67
School intervention focused on changing the school . 67
School intervention focused on changing the youth. . 67

Legal system intervention .............. 67
Contracting ..................... 68
Advocacy ...................... 68
Nonprofessional Volunteer Measures ............ 68
Knowledge acquisition and retention .......... 68
Volunteer training satisfaction . . ..... , . . . . 69
Volunteer attitude ................... 70
Individual punitive ................. 70
Radical-nonintervention .............. . 70
RESULTS .............................. 7l
Youth Outcome Measures. . . . ................ 72
Archival Data ....................... 73
Police data ...................... 73
Court data ....................... 8l
School data ...................... 90
Summary of archival outcome data ............ 94
Interview Based Measures ................. 94
Self-reported delinquency ............... 96
Labeling outcome .................... 96
Police reference .................. 98

Court reference ................... 98
Project reference. . ................ 98

Page

Label acceptance/rejection ........ . . . . . . 102

Summary of labeling measures. ......... . . . 102

Process measures .............. . . . . . . 104
Amount of time. ............ , . . . . . . . 104
Volunteer contacts ...... .. . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Summary of general volunteer involvement. . . . . ... 106
Recreational activities ...... . ...... . . . 106

Home involvement focused on changing the parent . . . 109

Home involvement focused on changing the youth. . . . 109

Summary of home interventions ............ 113

School intervention focused on changing the school. . 113

School intervention focused on changing the youth . . 113

Summary of school interventions ........... 115

Legal system interventions .............. 115

Summary of legal system interventions ........ 119
Contracting interventions ......... . . . . . 119

Advocacy interventions ........ , ..... . . 119

Summary of process measures ............... 123
Impact on Nonprofessional Volunteers ...... . . . . . . . 125
Course Related Measures .................. 125
Knowledge acquisition/retention measure ......... 125
Volunteer training satisfaction ............. 126
Volunteer Attitude Measures ................ 126
Individual punitive ................... 130
Radical-nonintervention ................. 130
Summary of nonprofessional data ............. 130
Overview of Findings ..................... 13D
DISCUSSION ............................. 134
Questions Posed by this Study ................. 134
Archival Outcome Results .................. 135
Self-reported Estimates of Delinquent Behavior ....... 140
Labeling Effects ..................... .. 141
Intervention Process Findings ............... 143
Impact on the Volunteers .................. 148
Limitations of this Research ................. 150
Implications and Conclusions ................. 153

Major Research Issues Raised in this Study. . . . . . . . . 153
Degree of implementation of the model. . . . . . . . . . 153

Outcome ............ . ...... . ..... 155

Future Directions ....................... 156
Diversion . .. ................ . ..... . 156

,Social Change ....................... 157
APPENDICES ............................. 159
REFERENCES ............................. 263

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1 Research Design for Archival Outcome Measure ......... 35
2 Research Design for Nonarchival Measures ........... 36
3 Labeling Scales Intercorrelations ............... 62
4 Intervention Process Scales Intercorrelations ......... 64

5 Inter-Interviewer Agreement Correlations Intervention Process

Scales .......................... 65

6 Archival Court and Police Data Intercorrelations ....... 74

7 Police Contacts Adjusted for Time at Risk ........... 75

8 Pre-Post Police Contacts Adjusted for Time at Risk ...... 77

9 Average Seriousness of Police Contacts ............ 79

10 Pre-Post Average Seriousness of Police Contacts ........ 80
11 Most Serious Police Disposition ................ 82
12 Pre-Post Most Serious Police Disposition ........... 83
13 Court Petitions Adjusted for Time at Risk ........... 84
14 Pre-Post Court Petitions Adjusted for Time at Risk . . . . . . 86
15 Average Seriousness of Court Petitions ............ 87
16 Most Serious Court Disposition ................ 88
17 Pre-Post Average Seriousness of Court Petitions ........ 89
18 Pre-Post Most Serious Court Disposition ............ 91
19 Months Incarcerated ...................... 92
20 Number of Youth Enrolled in School ....... . ...... 93
21 Summary of Archival Outcome Results .............. 95

22 Self-Reported Delinquency ................... 97

vii

Table
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41

Youth's Rating of Labelers Knowledge of Contact with Police. .
Youth's Rating of Labelers Knowledge of Court Contacts . . . .
Youth's Rating of Labelers Knowledge of Project Involvement. .
Label Acceptance/Rejection ....... . ..........
Amount of Intervention Time. . . . . . . . . . . . ......
Volunteer/Youth Contacts ...................
Recreational Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Home Intervention Focused on Changing Parent .........
Home Intervention Focused on Changing Youth ..........
School Intervention Focused on Changing the School ......
School Intervention Focused on Changing the Youth .......
Intervention in the Legal System ............. . .
Contracting Intervention Activity ...... . ........
Advocacy Intervention Activity ................
Summary of Intervention Results ................
Volunteer Training Test ....................
Evaluation of Didactic Training ................
Delinquency Orientation Individual Punitive ..........

Delinquency Orientation Radical Non-Intervention .......

viii

Page
99
100
101
103
105
107
108
111
112
114
116
117

122
124
127
129
131
132

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1 Project Organizational Structure ............... 34
2 Recreational Activities .................... 110
3 Contracting Intervention Activities ............ . . 121
4 Volunteer Training Test .................... 128

ix

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page
A Draft of Administrative Agreement ............. 159
8 Recruitment Letter. . . . . ................. 160
C Student Agreement ................ . . . . . 161
D Referral Sheet ....................... 162
E Participation Agreement .................. 163
F Release of School Records ....... . ......... 164
G Diversion Training Manual ............... . . 165
H Seriousness and Dispositional Codes for Archival Court

and Police Data ..................... 244
I Self Report Delinquency Questionnaire ........... 245
J Label Spread Instruction Form ............... 248
K Label Spread Answer Sheet ................. 249
L Intervention Opinions ................... 250
M Course Evaluation ..................... 255
N Delinquency Orientation Scale ............... 258

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Present Perspective

 

The past two decades have brought a phenomenal increase in the crime
rates in this country and a resultant public awareness and outcry. The
acuteness of this trend was evident in the dialogue of public office seekers
of the recent Political campaigns on both the national level and the local
level in central Michigan. Saleem Shah, Director of the Center for Studies
of Crime and Delinquency of the National Institutes of Mental Health,
capsulized this trend with the following statement:

It can be said with little fear of exaggeration that the phe-

nomena of delinquency and crime constitute one of the most

critical domestic problems presently facing the country

(Shah, 1973).

Though the rapid increase in the incident rates of juvenile crime has
slowed somewhat in the past five years, the acuteness of the present state
of affairs can be evidenced by comparing recent statistics with those
gathered during 1960. During the decade and a half from 1960 to 1975,
crimes increased by just over 200%. The President's Commission on Law
Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1967) estimated that one out of
nine in the population would have contact with the juvenile justice system
prior to reaching the age of eighteen. The rate was calculated to be one
in six if only males were considered. Wolfgang, Figlio, and Sellin (1974)

found that approximately one-third of the males born in Philadelphia in

1945 had official police contacts prior to the age of eighteen.
1

2

In 1978, over 23% of all arrests made in the United States were youth
under the age of eighteen. If only index crimes are considered (homicide,
rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, and auto theft),

41% of those arrests were under the age of eighteen (U.S. Bureau of the
Census, 1979). Currently, 22% of all males and 30% of all females
arrested have not yet reached the age of eighteen (U.S. Bureau of the
Census, 1979).

This alarming increase in the rate of juvenile crime has fueled an
increasing disillusionment with the juvenile justice system as a viable
method of directly addressing the problem. A broad spectrum of method-
ologies aimed at correcting the failures of the current system have been
suggested. These range from the utilization of extremely punitive
deterrence orientated approaches to the adoption of strategies aimed at
protecting youth from the harmful labeling effects of the juvenile justice
system as it currently exists. Unfortunately, there was no agreement upon
which strategy to adopt, consequently the problem remained. In light of
this, the President's Commission on Law Enforcement (1967) challenged both
the juvenile justice system and the community to jointly develop viable
means of intervening with juveniles. The diversion of juveniles from the
juvenile justice system through an alternative community agency has been
a direct outgrowth of these perspectives.

Though diversion programs typically remove juveniles from further con-
tact with the juvenile justice system, they also generally provide an alter-
native intervention program. The current research proposed to compare
three intervention strategies. The first group of youth were diverted
from the system and placed in a program operated through the Department

of Psychology at Michigan State University. Undergraduates trained in

3

child advocacy and behavioral contracting techniques were assigned to work
with these youth. A second group of youth were also assigned undergrad-
uates trained in the same advocacy and contracting techniques. However,
these youth were not formally diverted from the juvenile justice system.
Youth in third group were also not diverted from the juvenile justice
system and received treatment as usual from that court system.

The following sections will outline the historical events that led
to the present perspective and the need for alternatives. The first
section will present a general description of the conception and growth
of the juvenile justice system. It will be followed by a critique of the
current system's delinquency control efforts. The third section will
detail the concurrent historical development of the major theoretical
explanations of juvenile delinquency. The following section will attempt
to draw from these theories and outline the need for alternatives to the
traditional juvenile justice system. The specific alternatives that led
directly to the current research will then be developed, ultimately leading

to the final research questions posed by this study.

Historical Perspective

 

Historical Development of the Juvenile Justice System

 

Juvenile delinquency and society's responses to this problem can be
traced to precolonial days in Europe, however, for present purposes the
most meaningful place of departure would be the dawn of the industrial
revolution in America around the turn of the 19th century. Increased
child labor contributed to the weakening of family ties. The social con-
trol system based upon strong family units also began to deteriorate.

These deteriorating family units coupled with the move towards urban areas,

increasing population density, and prevalent poverty conditions led to a

4
drastic decline in traditional forms of social control. These conditions
led to the first house of refuge opened in New York in 1825 (Krisberg &
Austin, 1978). Within the next several years, houses of refuge were
started across the country. These houses were essentially prisons for
delinquents; however, they were viewed as schools for instruction rather
than places of punishment. Since they were founded as preventative insti-
tutions, these houses of refuge accepted delinquent, dependent and neglected
youth, a practice which continues to this day in the juvenile justice sys-
tem. During the second half of the 19th century, most states took over
jurisdiction of the houses of refuge and they became known as state reform
schools.

The 20th century version of the juvenile justice system began in
Illinois in 1899 with the passage of the first comprehensive child welfare
legislation in this country. This legislation was a direct attempt to
protect the youth from the mistreatment that had historically been a part
of the houses for wayward youth and state reform schools. The legislation
was also intended to protect society from the misdeeds of the delinquent
youth. The thrust of the initial Illinois legislation was to provide for
the care of the youth in a manner similar to the care given by a typical
responsible parent. The youth were essentially denied legal safeguards
provided for in adult courts in exchange for the parentlike concern and
individualized justice and treatment provided by the juvenile court.

The juvenile court in Illinois quickly expanded. By 1901 status
offenses, those offenses unique only to juveniles, were incorporated into
the court's sphere of influence. By 1905, the court was also responsible
for the supervision and treatment of youthful offenders. Finally, by

1907, the court incorporated its own paid professional probation staff.

5
By the mid 1920's, virtually every state had its own separate juve-
nile justice system. Though they were heavily influenced by the leading
delinquency theorists of the day, the juvenile courts continued in this
preventive substitute parent role through the mid 1960's (Krisberg &
Austin, 1978).

Critique of the Juvenile Justice System

 

During the juvenile court's first half century of existence, opera-
ting procedures fluctuated as a function of the changing philosophies of
the times. However, the court continued with its informal operating prin-
ciples and "apparent lack of concern for troubled youths."

In the mid 1960's, the juvenile court came under stringent attack from
many perspectives. These criticisms are evident in a series of court deci-
sions that attacked the very basis of the juvenile court structure. In
Kent vs. the U.S. (1966) the juvenile courts were warned against procedural
arbitrariness. And in a landmark case (Gault, 1967), the court recognized
the constitutionally guaranteed rights to due process for juveniles. In a
majority opinion, Justice Abe Fortes stated ”under our constitution the
condition of being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court" (Gault, 1967).
Though these legal decisions did offer additional procedural safeguards to
juveniles, many felt that the remedy to the court's problems did not lie in
the increased formality of proceedings but in the lack of treatment resources.

Another frequently levied criticism of the juvenile justice system
centered around its exclusive reliance on the use of police contacts and
referrals as well as court contacts and disposition as the sole definition
of delinquency. It has been claimed that these official archival records
are more a measure of police behavior than they are a measure of deviant

behavior (Gold, 1966; Farrington, 1973; Williams & Gold, 1972). It has also

6
been pointed out that most delinquent behaviors are not officially
observed or reported, and would, therefore, not appear in official records
(Blakely, Kushler, Parisian, & Davidson, 1979).

Such a focus has led many, especially police and court officials,
to erroneously conclude that delinquency is essentially a lower socio—
economic class phenomena centered within minority groups living primarily
in urban areas. This assumption in turn initiates a cycle which biases
official police and court behavior and is reflected in the demographic
characteristics of youth that come in contact with the system.

As these conclusions suggest, the present state of affairs is in a bit
of an uproar. Researchers and practitioners in the field are evaluating
numerous alternatives to the system as it presently exists. Prior to out-
lining these alternatives, the next section will detail the major theories
of delinquency as they led to these alternatives and ultimately the develop-
ment of the current research.

Theories of Delinquency

 

Following the first decade of operation of the probate court in Illinois,
the conclusion was reached that many juveniles needed attention of a more
professional nature than that provided by even the most dedicated probation
officers. In a response to this conclusion, the Juvenile Psychopathic
Institute was opened in Illinois in 1909 with William Healy as its head
(Mennel, 1973). The institute was undertaken with the intention of ascer-
taining causal or influential factors related to delinquency as well as
delineating a practical intervention strategy. Unfortunately, Healy was
unable to locate a definitive set of causes of delinquency through observa-
tion. However, he did pinpoint several potential causes of delinquency

including peer group influences, adventure seeking, and mental disorders.

7
Healy concluded that "every case will always need study by itself”
(Mennel, 1973, p. 165). In subsequent years, Healy argued that a great
deal of juvenile delinquents could be traced to the relationship between
the child and his parents. This was a widely adhered to perspective that
strongly supported and legitimized the flexible parens patriae operation
of the court. Healy's work also added credence to the necessity of incor-
porating primarily professionals in delinquency prevention due to the
complex nature of the delinquency problem and its related causes. This fact
tended to isolate the juvenile court from direct public scrutiny. Following
his work in Chicago, Healy began establishing child guidance clinics across
the country.

Individual differences. Using Healy's findings as a point of depar-

 

ture, Glueck and Glueck (1934) designed a longitudinal study aimed at
identifying the causal factors in delinquency. They evaluated youth from
these guidance clinics and found the recidivism rates to be high (Glueck

& Glueck, 1934). The Glueck's continued to stress the importance of
individual factors as they related to delinquent behavior. Even during the
depression of the 1930's, importance of the family for the treatment and
rehabilitation of delinquents was emphasized. Again, these notions
supported the juvenile court structure as it existed_

The influence of the Gluecks has been apparent for the past forty
years in delinquency research. Their methodology of assessing a delinquent
population and a nondelinquent population and pinpointing differences as
being pertinent to juvenile delinquency has been used frequently. Though
the technique frequently yields large numbers of false positives, Waldo
and Dinitz (1967) found delinquents and nondelinquents to differ on objec-
tive personality tests, performance measures, as well as projective tech-

niques.

8

Sociological theories. Another diametrically opposed viewpoint was

 

developed in Chicago in the early to mid 1930's. The Chicago area project
was a direct offshoot of this new perspective. The philosophical assump-
tions of the project were based on the sociological theories of Shaw and
McKay (Shaw, 1929; Shaw & McKay, 1942). This group's explanation of
delinquent behavior differed radically from the other leading theorists of
the time who stressed internal explanations for delinquent behavior and
institutionalization as the intervention approach. The Area Project

found delinquency rates to be heavily represented in different sectors of
the Chicago community and, consequently, based theoretical interpretations
upon demographic and socio-economic conditions of different sectors of the
inter-city. Delinquency was seen as a problem particularly acute in the
city environment due to factors such as population density, changing neigh-
borhoods and related adjustment problems, as well as the resultant strain
on traditional community and family controls. The group also stressed the
importance of the impact of adolescent peer groups.

The Area Project became one of the first groups to directly intervene
in a preventive sense. The project attempted to intervene directly in the
community by pinpointing community members that demonstrated certain leader-
ship qualities. The community members were given meaningful roles and
shared in a decision-making process within each community organization.
These workers from within the community were seen as potentially more dedi-
cated since they had an obvious direct vested interest as well as detailed
knowledge of community peculiarities. Given proper training and guidance,
they were seen as capable of organizing and administering their own local
welfare programs, etc. The community group involved themselves in recrea-

tional programs, law enforcement programs, and campaigns in schools. This

9
was seen as a means of dealing with delinquency in a preventive fashion,
although more direct efforts were employed with institutionalized youth
and delinquent gangs. Though all the results were not definitive, most
theorists concluded that the Area Project in Chicago clearly succeeded
in organizing community groups and dealing with the problems related to
delinquency, and it appeared as if delinquency rates decreased slightly in
affected areas (Krisberg & Austin, 1978).

These sociological theories have been supported by others that viewed
delinquency as a result of the structures present within the society
(Merton, 1957). However, these theories have also been severely criticized.
The criticism has centered on the findings that various demographic vari-
ables such as socio—economic status, race, and geographic area, tend to be
correlated with official arrest rates, however, this is not necessarily
true of actual delinquent behavior rates (Nye, Short, & Olson, 1958).

More recently, this critical view has been supported in great detail
(Hirschi, 1969; Erickson & Empey, 1963; Williams & Gold, 1972).

Another sociological group that supported the notion of community
organization and development in a preventive sense originated with the
mobilization for youth in New York City. This group was founded on the
theories of blocked opportunity developed by Cloward and Ohlin (1960).
This theoretical perspective suggested that all of society maintains
middle class goals yet the legitimate avenues of accessing those goals are
differentially available to different subgroups within the population.
Lower class and other minority subgroups are denied many legitimate means
of accessing these goals. They are forced to exist in a slum community
with its discrimination and inadequate school systems, yet they are

pressured to succeed. With the lack of legitimate opportunities, many

10
are compelled to actualize their goals through illegitimate means which
are more readily available to them.

In the late 1960's and early 1970's, the move towards the youth
service bureau concept began as an outgrowth of the Chicago Area Project
and the mobilization for youth in New York. Again, agency people were
expected to work hand in hand with community representatives to decide on
specific program content. At the time of the founding of the youth ser-
vice bureaus, the central focus was on diverting juvenile offenders from
the formal criminal justice system and providing welfare assistance and
other social services. In general, youth service bureaus tended to fail
in their efforts to succeed at these basic goals. Conflicts arose between
agency professionals and community representatives as to the appropriate
programmatic contact. Gradually, the focus of the youth service bureaus
moved away from the community action approach begun by the Area Project
in Chicago. The move was clearly toward limiting community input, thereby
reducing the challenge of the authority of the bureaus. In some cases,
this was carried to such an extreme that the youth service bureaus were
directly controlled by police or probation departments with no community
input whatsoever (Davidson, Koch, Lewis & Wresinski, in press).

Behavioral theories. Another theory that rapidly began to gain

 

credence during the 1960's is that of the behavioral explanation for
delinquent behavior. Proponents of this approach have argued that any
behavior, delinquent or not, is learned as a function of its consequences
(Bandura, 1969; Ullmann & Krasner, 1975). According to this approach,
there are many forces active within the youth's environment that may lead
to delinquent behavior. Parents may punish or ignore prosocial behavior

on the part of the youth while at the same time reinforce antisocial

11
behavior. Schools may reinforce antisocial behavior while ignoring pro-
social behavior on the part of the youth. The youth's peer group may
concurrently reinforce antisocial behavior while ignoring or even ridi-
culing prosocial behavior on the part of the youth (Patterson & Reid,
1970).

This perspective looked beyond the individual and identified the
importance of the environment in the acquisition and maintenance of
delinquent behavior. The implications, in terms of intervention strate-
gies, have suggested the need to rearrange the environmental contingencies
or reinforcement patterns in order to decrease antisocial behavior and
increase prosocial behavior. The absolute number of behavioral applica-
tions and the variety of settings have grown considerably in the last two
decades. However, the research efforts have been characterized by a
number of methodological flaws that have threatened the validity of the
conclusions (Davidson & Seidman, 1974; Neitzel, Winett, MacDonald, &
Davidson, 1977). Others have questioned the durability of these behav-
ioral changes (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968; Baer, 1973) and the general-
izability of these changes (Burchard & Harig, 1976). These considerations
have led many to conclude that since the maintaining stimuli for delin-
quent behavior is in the natural environment, the focus for change should
also occur in the environment. In that sense, active change in the
Guivironment acts to build in preventive measures to deter future delin-

quent or antisocial behavior (Emshoff, 1980).
Numerous examples of behavioral applications in the natural environ—
‘fnéarit exist as well. Many include behavioral interventions within the
’7‘3rnéa settings of delinquents (Patterson, 1974; Alexander & Parsons, 1973;
StUart, 1971).

 

12
Results have been positive, however, many of Davidson and Seidman's
criticisms applied to this research as well (Davidson & Seidman, 1974).
The application of behavioral theories in delinquency prevention appears
promising but the general issue of what strategy should be applied in
which specific setting remains unresolved.

Labeling theory. Another major theoretical perspective that began

 

to receive considerable attention in the late 1960's and early 1970's
was social labeling theory. The beginnings of labeling theory can be
traced to the early writings of Lemert (1951). Though Lemert identified
several origins for deviant behavior, the critical factor in labeling
theory is society's reaction to that behavior on the part of the individ-
ual. Systematic deviation then becomes likely when society makes sur-
vival of the deviant individual a problem unless he can become absorbed
in some sort of protective social system. Lemert clarified this process
byddistinguishing between primary and secondary deviation. He'Saw
primary deviation as the state of affairs in which an individual engages
in norm violating behavior that he regards as not a part of his normal
repertoire. On the other hand, secondary deviation develops when the
individual becomes aware of his deviant role. Deviations remain primary
and situational as long as they are rationalized or otherwise dealt with
as functions of a socially acceptable role (Lemert, 1974). Secondary
<deviation arises out of repeated acts of norm violation and an experi-
encing of societal reactions. Frequently, these reactions on society's
Part stimulate further deviant acts. Lemert saw the process as beginning
. wi th primary deviation followed by societal penalties; further primary
deviation followed by stronger penalties and rejections on society's

F’sair‘tz; further deviation with resentments beginning to focus on those

 

13
doing the penalizing followed by a crisis in which the community stigma-
tizes the deviant which results in a strengthening of the deviant role
and acceptance of that position on the part of the individual (Lemert,
1951).

More recently, Becker (1963) has pointed out that the likelihood
that a behavioral event will be identified as deviant varies according to
the time and place in which it occurred. Becker illustrated the potential
impact of labeling theory with the example of an individual falsely
accused as a deviant and the resultant societal reactions even though the
individual had been conforming in character. Perhaps Becker's greatest
contribution to the field has been his concept of the deviant career.
Becker suggested that deviant careers ought to be studied in terms of
the processes and variables which sustain that pattern of behavior over a
period of time rather than focusing on specific occurrences. He argued
that:

One of the most crucial steps in the process of building a

stable pattern of deviant behavior is likely to be the

experience of being caught and publicly labeled as devi-

ant . . . the most important consequence is a drastic

change in the individual's public identity (p. 30).

Klein has described the labeling process as a four step process
(Klein, Teilmann, Lincoln, & Labin, 1978). The process begins with the
actual commission of a juvenile offense and subsequent contact with
the judicial system. At this point, an official label is attached to
the youth. The second step can be seen as a spreading of that label.
This spread, in a sense, can be assessed by determining the actual number
of people in the youth's environment that become aware of the attached

(label. The third step would then be seen as an internalization on the

part of the youth of the actual label. This internalization can be

l4

simplified to read the extent to which the youth is aware of others'
opinions of him in terms of the actual label, weighted by the extent that
the youth cares about the person's opinion. The fourth and final step

is seen as a result of the initial three and is merely continued contact
with the juvenile justice system.

Schur (1975) would argue that although reality is a good deal more
complex than labeling theory would have us believe, the theory does advise
us to pay attention to social definitions of deviants and society's
reactions to deviant persons. Gibbons would argue that although this is
all well and good, there has not been a great amount of empirical investi-

gation of these matters to date (Gibbons & Jones, 1975).

The Need for an Alternative

 

The previous sections have outlined the prominent theories of delin-
quency causation, the historical development of the juvenile court system,
and the major procedural critiques of the system that arose in the 1960's.
The major theories alone have stimulated a great diversity of implications
for intervention strategies. Many of these strategies have been imple-
mented with varying degrees of success by practitioners in the field. The
critical attack waged on the system for its procedural arbitrariness,
coupled with conflicting research results, led to an increased disillu-
sionment with the traditional juvenile justice system and its means of
intervening in the lives of delinquent youth. Therefore, demand has
increased for delinquency prevention programs that are community based
(President's Commission on Law Enforcement, 1967), use nonprofessionals
((Gruver, 1971; Kantrowitz, 1979; Mitchell, 1980), and divert youth from

the formal juvenile justice system (Lemert, 1971; Davidson, 1978).

15

Community Based Intervention Alternative

 

The President's Commission on Law Enforcement (1967) challenged both
the justice system and the community to jointly seek alternatives in the
intervention and prevention of delinquency. The priorities of institu—
tional based versus community based intervention alternatives have see-
sawed back and forth for years. In the last decade, frequent criticisms
of institutional alternatives have emerged and a move toward the use of
community based strategies for dealing with delinquents has surfaced along
with the above noted trend towards diversion programs. Criticisms have
typically centered around the ineffective strategies employed with insti-
tutional settings and occasional examples of inhumane treatment (Golden-
berg, 1971; Wright & Dixon, 1977).

The historical beginnings of the movement toward community based
intervention programs can be traced to the Chicago sociologists (Shaw &
McKay, 1942; Merton, 1957) who argued for situational and population based
factors as contributing to the delinquency problem, the blocked opportunity
structure theories of Cloward and Ohlin (1960), the gang delinquency
theories (Short, 1968), the impact of schools (Gold & Mann, 1972), and
possible labeling effects of juvenile justice system involvement (Golden-
berg, 1971; Elliott, 1978; Lewis & Davidson; Lincoln, et al., 1977).

Another perspective that historically has led to arguments favoring
the community based alternatives can be tied to the individual differences
tradition founded in the classic work of the Gluecks (1951). By defining
the subgroups as being either delinquent or nondelinquent as a function of
either institutionalization versus noninstitutionalization or previous
police contacts versus no previous police contacts, researchers have

identified differences based on several personality and social

l6
characteristics (Waldo & Dinitz, 1967) and differential parenting skills
(Glueck & Glueck, 1951). Others have found delinquents to be morally
immature (Prentice, 1972), less socialized (Smith & Austrin, 1974), lack-
ing in social skills (Phillips, Phillips, Fixsen, & Wolf, 1976), and the
product of dysfunctional upbringing (Alexander, 1973).

With the demand for alternatives to traditional means of intervention
so great, the interaction of the two above mentioned historical develop-
ments led to a suggestion for community based intervention programming.
The demand for preventive measures in delinquency control made the need
for community based programming even more apparent.

Actual intervention programs implemented in community settings have
been extremely varied. Programs have been designed to assist in the transi-
tion from institutionalized settings back into the community (Moeller,
1968), provide alternatives to institutionalization (Davidson & Robinson,
1975), as well as provide for a continuation of detached gang workers'
programs (Klein, 1971). In fact, in a recent review, Wright and Dixon
(1977) have identified over 6,000 different community projects.

In the area of delinquency Control, community programs designed to
impact upon the delinquency problem have been structured into two general
groups. The first group contains those programs designed to provide ser-
vices to formally identified delinquents (i.e., those with formal police
contacts or those currently institutionalized). Shore and Massimo (1973)
in a ten year follow-up study of youths receiving educational training,
job training, and counseling have indicated that these youth show lower
recidivism rates and are more frequently employed than controls. Others
have failed to find positive results when comparing institutionalized

youth with those in community programs (Stephenson & Scarpitti, 1969).

17
The second group attempted to influence the delinquency problem
through community based preventative programs. Again, results have
typically been mixed (Davidson, 1976). Many have raised serious questions
about the predictive accuracy of preventive community programs, particu-
larly with the probable high rate of false positives (Rappaport, Seidman,
& Lamiel, 1977; McCord, 1977).

Diversion Alternative

 

One of the major outgrowths of these community based efforts has been
the diversion of juvenile offenders from formal court processing. The
recommendations of the President's Commission state that diversion is
essentially a process of referring youth to existing community treatment
programs at some point between apprehension and adjudication. The Presi-
dent's Commission also suggested that a community based program should be
independent of and in lieu of justice system involvement.

Proponents of this diversion approach found immediate support from
several areas. Sociologists from the Chicago Area Projects as well as
more recent social learning theorists have been arguing for years for a
similar approach to delinquency prevention. Their view essentially
defines the typical cycle as beginning with an influential subgroup or
group within the society with the power to confer labels (Erickson, 1962).
This influential group defines what behaviors are acceptable and which are
not. Given the definitions formed by these groups, individuals can be
defined as different or deviants. Quite frequently these deviants are
clumped together and all differing characteristics are duly noted. These
characteristics are then defined as the problem and often those inflicted
(with the problem are relegated inferior social standing (Becker, 1963;

Ryan, 1971).

,-

4.

t'

18
Many theorists based strong appeals for diversion on similar conclu-
sions as that reached by Lemert (1971):
In many cases the harm done to children and youth by contacts
with these courts outweighs any benefits therby gained . . . .
Moreover, the interaction between child and court an unantici-

pated consequences of the processing of a child in many
instances contributes to or exacerbates the problem of delin-

quency (p. 1).

In 1973, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare reached a similar
conclusion in stating that the juvenile court is a “market place wherein

a negative community image is unwillingly purchased, consumer protection
is minimal, and all sales are final."

Given this background, diversion programs appeared all around the
country. The most obvious reaction on a large scale was witnessed in the
youth service bureaus. These bureaus were initially intended to serve as
a clearinghouse for community resources available to delinquent youth. As
mentioned earlier, youth service bureaus have met with conflicting results
(Lewis & Davidson, 1977). Major criticisms of diversionary programs have
centered around fears that diverted youth are those that have committed
less serious offenses. Another serious criticism has centered around the
possibility that diversionary programs have provided a means of sidestep-
ping the Gault decision by forcing the youth into a pseudo plea bargaining
situation. Essentially, this argument suggested that the youth is
coerced into choosing the less consequential diversion alternative with
its inherent implication of a guilty plea rather than fighting the system
and employing the guaranteed legal safeguards (Nejelski, 1976).

Sound research evaluations of diversion programs have existed only in
-the past several years. Again results have been conflicting. Lincoln

conducted an evaluation of a series of diversion programs in Southern

19
California and failed to find any positive effects in official outcome or
self-report data (Lincoln, Teilmann, Klein, & Labin, 1977). In fact, the
study's findings suggested that the diversion programs yielded higher
recidivism rates than simple release procedures (Carter & Klein, 1976). In
another study, Elliott (1978) found similar results when he noted that
recidivism rates for a diversion group did not differ from those of a
court referred group.

Others have reached more positive conclusions. Collingswood, Douds,
and Williams (1976) in evaluating the Dallas Police Department and youth
services program, found that diverted youth receiving counseling and skills
programming were less likely to be rearrested than those not participating
in a diversion program. Though the evaluation was not based on strong
experimental methodology, it did provide more promising support for diver-
sion programs. Binder, Monahan and Newkirk (1976), in a truly randomized
experimental evaluation of a similar program, reached mixed results. On
the other hand, in another truly randomized experimental design involving
diverted youth working with volunteers and control youth that were
released outright, results indicated that diverted youth were less likely
to recidivate (Seidman, Rappaport, & Davidson, 1976; Davidson, Rappaport,
Seidman, Berck, Rapp, Rhodes, & Herring, 1977). Kantrowitz (l979),in a
study that was a direct outgrowth of the work done by Davidson, et a1.
(1976), found similar results.

In summary, few empirically sound evaluation studies of diversionary
programs exist to date. Of those that do, conclusions have been mixed.
The one strong conclusion that can be drawn is that diversion programs do
hold promise (Davidson, et al., 1976; Kantrowitz, 1979) and more work is

needed.

20

The Use of Nonprofessionals as Change Agents

 

Additional criticism of traditional juvenile court processes was
leveled at a general lack of manpower. This problem is poignantly evi-
dent when considering intra-individual approaches of intervention. How—
ever, the use of nonprofessionals has also been tied to the community
based movement since nonprofessionals contribute flexibility, enthusiasm,
and new perspectives (Poser, 1966). One of the most outspoken researchers
in criticizing the intra-individual approach and its related lack of
personpower has been George Albee (1968). His conclusions have led
Gruver (1971) to summarize the situation by stating that:

Albee's continuing investigation of professional manpower

resources in the mental health fields had made apparent

the severe current shortages, and, further, has suggested

the probability of even greater future shortages.

A second aspect of the mental health manpower dilemma is

that even if there were sufficient numbers of professional

personnel, present mental health ideology would prevent

many of those needing help from receiving it . . . groups

such as drug abusers, alcoholics, and juvenile delinquents

have also been neglected by the mental health professionals

primarily because professional contact with them has been

for the most part fruitless.

More provocative is the evidence that nonprofessionals

are more effective than their professional counterparts

in working with some population which are presently

receiving professional focus (pgs. 111, 112).

As in other fields in psychology and the social sciences, the use of
nonprofessional volunteers as professionally supervised change agents
has dramatically increased in recent years. Recent figures suggest that
there are over a quarter of a million volunteers involved in over 2,000
programs relating to delinquents and juvenile court settings (Schwartz,
-Jensen, & Mahoney, 1977). Typical volunteer programs have used the non-

professionals as part of a correctional team (Schwartz, 1971), as

21
caseaides (Lee, 1968), as Big Brothers in a probation setting (Logan, 1972),
as well as with institutionalized youth (Reinhertz, 1969).

An additional variable of considerable interest is the impact of non-
professional programs on volunteers themselves. Cowen, Zax, and Laird
(1966) have noted that volunteers' attitudes towards the target population
become more positive, while their attitudes towards relevant institutions
become more negative. Gruver (1971) has found that volunteer programs have
a positive impact on the volunteer's self-confidence and self-acceptance.

In summary, many have found the use of volunteers in service to delin-
quents to have worked well and resulted in reduced recidivism rates
(Siegel, 1973; Rosenbaum, Grissel, Kaschtail, Knox, & Leenhouts, 1969).
Others have been more cautious about their conclusions (Gruver, 1971;
Rappaport, 1977) frequently suggesting that despite the widespread belief
in the superiority of indigenous nonprofessional volunteers, the ultimate

answer awaits empirical documentation (Durlak, 1979).

Rationale for the Present Line of Research

 

The juvenile court was initiated more than eighty years ago as an
alternative to processing juveniles through adult courts. The court has
come under increased attack during the last decade and a half due to its
procedural arbitrariness, manpower shortages and general ineffectiveness.
The major theories of delinquency causation have frequently conflicted and
have been criticized for their inherent dependencies on official archival
records. It has been argued that they are merely theories of penetration
into the juvenile justice system, rather than theories of delinquency.
(Many of the intervention strategies that arose from these major theoreti-

cal perspectives have also been criticized as ineffective.

22

The legislative mandate and theoretical support for community based
programs was outlined. More specifically, diversion programs were pre-
sented as a community based intervention alternative to the juvenile jus-
tice system's traditional strategies. The use of nonprofessionals was
also suggested as a potentially effective method of implementing community
based diversion programs on a widespread basis.

The next section will briefly outline the historical development of
the Adolescent Diversion Project, a successful community based diversion
program utilizing nonprofessional volunteers as change agents. The
following section will point out the need to disseminate successful
innovations that ultimately led to the current research. Finally, the
specific research questions will be detailed.

The Adolescent Diversion Project

 

Conclusions drawn from the historical trends above led several
researchers at the University of Illinois to design a community based
diversion program for youthful offenders (Davidson, 1976; Rappaport &
Seidman, 1971; Seidman & Rappaport, 1974; Davidson, et al., 1977). The
program was designed to train undergraduates in nonprofessional roles as
change agents. These undergraduates were then randomly assigned delin-
quent youth from local police departments. Youth were, therefore, diverted
from further juvenile justice system contacts.

The community based intervention strategy was based upon two models.
The first model, behavioral contracting, arose out of findings by several
authors that delinquent families tended to be more negative in their inter-
action with each other (Alexander, 1973; Alexander & Parsons, 1973).

1 Stuart (1971) concluded that this lack of positive reinforcement within

the home environment led to an increase in delinquent behavior on the part

23
of the youth. He suggested that a modification of reinforcement patterns
within the home could alleviate much of this problem.

Stuart developed four assumptions upon which he based his behavioral
contracting model. The first of these was that the receipt of positive
reinforcement in an interpersonal interaction is seen as a privilege and
not a right. Second, effective interpersonal interactions are based on
the norm of reciprocity. Third, the value of an interpersonal interaction
is based on the range, rate and magnitude of the reinforcers mediated in
that interaction. And fourth, rules are seen as creating freedom for those
involved in the interaction. This allows for a knowledgeable choice of
behaviors by knowing a priori the consequences of that choice.

Behavioral contracts essentially detail a specific exchange of rein-
forcers within the home environment. This specific exchange guarantees
the receipt of positives by all involved in clearly defined situations.
The negotiation of theSe contracts also tends to assist in developing a
more functional interactional pattern among those involved in the immediate
family environment.

The behavioral contracting model has been employed in many settings.
The most typical of these have been marital counseling (Azrin, Naster, 8
Jones, 1973) and within the families of delinquents (DeRici & Butz, 1974;
Stuart & Tripodi, 1973; Stuart & Lott, 1972).

The second model employed by Davidson and his associates was that of
child advocacy (Davidson & Rapp, 1976). This intervention strategy can
be traced to the blocked opportunity theories of Cloward and Ohlin (1960)

and the notion of blaming the victim developed by Ryan (1971). An addi-
itional rationale behind the use of advocacy strategies has been the con-

cern for the protection of the youth's rights and interests. Several

24
authors have concluded that although the actual commission of delinquent
acts does not differ, lower socio-economic status youths tend to be
arrested more often than their higher economic status peers (Erickson
& Empey, 1963; Williams 8 Gold, 1972; Erickson, 1973). These lower socio-
economic status youth have also tended to receive more serious disposi-
tions for the same offense (Williams & Gold, 1972; Erickson, 1973).

These findings have led many to the conclusion that in many respects
delinquent youth are no different than their nondelinquent peers. How-
ever, they have become a victim of their situation. It was felt that an
advocate, similar to a lawyer or union steward, could be of great assis-
tance to youth in these situations (Davidson & Rapp, 1976). Finally, the
overall package employed by Davidson (1976) was tied together through the
use of the intervention model developed by Tharp and Wetzel (1969). Their
pyramid model employed the use of trained paraprofessionals as mediators
working directly within the family of the delinquent in the community
setting. Professionals were then responsible for training and supervising
the mediators. The educational pyramid model employed by Davidson incor-
porated undergraduates as trained volunteer mediators that were supervised
by graduate students who were in turn supervised by university faculty.

In a true random control group design, Davidson (1976) found both
advocacy and contracting strategies to be clearly superior to a no-treat-
ment control on such factors as recidivism rates, seriousness of subse-
quent petitions or police contacts, and school attendance records.
Davidsdn has also replicated these results in another setting (1978).
Recent work by Davidson and his associates has found the advocacy con-
tracting model of diversion to be superior to a court treatment as usual
group (Davidson, 1978) as well as a Big Brother type volunteer program

(Kantrowitz, 1979).

25

Innovation Dissemination

 

Community interventions with delinquents, diversion alternatives to
the juvenile justice system, and the use of nonprofessionals are all
strategies for intervening with delinquents that have in general been
fraught with conflicting results. The above review has suggested that
these strategies do hold potential promise but further documentation is
needed. The previous section outlined a successful delinquency prevention
innovation that incorporates these three strategies. Typically innovation
research has focused on this step by step process of evaluating social
programs. First, the innovation effectiveness is determined by comparing
it to various treatment as usual and no-treatment controls. Following
replications, the innovation is dissected in an attempt to determine what
components of the intervention are responsible for producing the desired
outcomes.

However, this line of research has focused solely on establishing the
utility of the innovation as a scientifically validated alternative. As
is frequently the case with successful federally funded demonstration
projects, a dissemination phase typically follows several systematic
replications. However, increasing concern is being felt about the amount
of return on the investment made in this innovation dissemination research
model (Williams, 1976). The bulk of the concern lies with the inefficient
utilization of information by appropriate agencies in the social services
sector. Fairweather, Sanders and Tornatzky (1974) have suggested that
many validated innovations simply disappear due to the lack of a systematic
plan to disseminate the innovation. All too frequently adopting organiza-
tions reinvent the innovations as they incorporate it into their formal

structure. The observation that adopting organizations frequently don't

26
adopt the innovation per se, but in fact adapt the technology (Charters
& Jones, 1973), leads one to the conclusion that ". . . tinkering
with the innovation may effect the critical components responsible for
its success" (Emshoff, Davidson, Schmitt, & Leedom, 1980). The issue of
the degree of implementation and the related outcome results at the level
of the adopting organization have too frequently been overlooked. "Thus,
one must focus not only on the intrinsic characteristics, but also one
must examine the extrinsic characteristics of the intervention from the

viewpoints of the new utilizer§'(Mitchell, 1980, P- 34).

The Current Research

 

Thus far, the Adolescent Diversion Project has been established as a
viable alternative to traditional juvenile justice system handling of
delinquent youth. The model has been intrinsically dissected and many of
the core components have been identified. With the continued success of
the diversion model developed by Davidson and his colleagues has come
the inereasing demand for the dissemination of the intervention model.

The current research was designed to focus on the extrinsic characteristics
of the innovation. Within the confines of a true experimental design, an
attempt was made to assess the extent to which an adopting organization
reinvented the innovation. More specifically, at issue was the generali-
zation of the activities of a model diversion program (Davidson, et al.,
1977; Davidson, 1976) following the transference of operational supervision
to an existing community agency, in this case, the juvenile court.

The current research proposed the training of undergraduate student
. volunteers in the same advocacy and contracting techniques mentioned
above. However, half of the students were formally supervised by court

personnel during intervention. This allowed for a direct assessment of a

27
more formal court involvement given common intervention strategies and
training. The research, therefore, attempted to determine the relative
effectiveness of the intervention strategy both in terms of the Adoles-
cent Diversion Project model and a court supervised dissemination alter-
native as well as a treatment as usual control.

Research Questions

 

Thus far, it has been demonstrated that the specifics of the diver-
sion model employed in the current line of research has proven to be
effective relative to several comparison groups. Prior to actual dissemi-
nation, a more rigorous evaluation of the extrinsic characteristics of the
innovation is in order. Can the findings be replicated in still different
settings? Must it necessarily be tied to the structure of a university?
What existing agencies might utilize the innovation? Since the juvenile
court is an existing social agency designed specifically to impact upon
the delinquency problem, can the model be tied to the formal juvenile
justice system structure and retain its essence? How might a change of
this nature be perceived by the youth or the volunteers involved?

These general research issues can be summarized in a set of specific
research questions. First, do the differential supervision modalities
result in differential outcome results? Does a supervision modification
of this sort change the program effectiveness? In order to assess these
notions, not only is the direct comparison of the two intervention modali-
ties required, but the inclusion of a treatment as usual control also is
imperative. A less effective court supervised intervention strategy
might be more cost efficient if it proved to be superior to the tradi-
tional treatment as usual control group. Dissemination to an already

existing social agency, the juvenile court, could prove to be less costly

28
than creating new agencies. This issue was addressed by analyzing court,
police and school records for youth in the three conditions. Second,
can the impact of the intervention process be observed in the daily
activities of the youth and significant others in the youth's life?
Are differential condition effects apparent? The goal of the overall
research project has been to attempt to define the specific components of
the intervention model that produce the desired outcome effects (Emshoff,
et al., 1979). In order to continue the process of breaking down the
"black box” that is the successful innovation, it is helpful to identify
specific areas in the youth's life that have been affected by the inter-
vention process. These changes may in turn be related to outcome results
and, therefore, may be useful in pinpointing specific areas of the youth's
life that should be focused upon during intervention. This information was
gathered through self-report interview data assessing various day to day
activities in the youth's life.

Third, the potential pitfalls of relying solely on archival outcome
measures in delinquency prevention programs has already been noted
(Blakely, et al., 1980). Were there differential self-reported estimates
of engaging in delinquent activity on the part of youth in the three con-
ditions?

Fourth, labeling theory has been laid out as one of the foundations
upon which many criticisms have been levied at the juvenile court (Becker,
1963; Lemert, 1971; Klein, et al., 1978). The three conditions inherent
in the current research have differing degrees of formal ties to the
juvenile court. Can the labeling effects this experience had on the
youth be assessed? Did these effects differ by condition? This informa-

tion was also gathered through self-report methodology.

29

Fifth, operational definitions will not suffice in describing inter-
ventions. It is an established fact that organizations rarely adopt an
innovation precisely as it was intended to be implemented (Fairweather,
et al., 1974; Emshoff, et al., 1980). Did the intervention model change
significantly as it was implemented by volunteers in the two experimental
conditions? The specifics of each volunteer's intervention activity were
also monitored closely across time through repeated interviews.

Sixth, the positive benefits frequently obtained by volunteers have
been noted (Gruver, 1971). However, the impact of the different super-
vision strategies employed by the two intervention modalities in the
current research may impact on the volunteers differently. Attitudinal
changes on the part of the volunteers could be related to labeling effects
and more importantly to outcome results (Cowen, Zax, & Laird, 1966). Did
the impact on the volunteers differ as a function of experimental condi-
tions? Volunteers were administered various training tests and attitude
questionnaires. The above mentioned measures will be detailed in the

following chapter.

CHAPTER II

METHOD

Context of the Research

 

The research took place within the context of a larger five-year
research project funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. The
Adolescent Diversion Project has been in formal operation since April of
1977. The research was designed to replicate and expand upon the work
done in the Illinois Project reported earlier (Davidson, 1976; Davidson,
Seidman, Rappaport, Berck, Rapp, Rhodes, & Herring, 1977; Seidman, Rappa-
port, Davidson & Linney, in press; Davidson & Rappaport, 1977). The pro-
ject followed the educational pyramid model noted in Seidman and Rappaport
(1974). The principal investigator supervised and consulted with graduate
students who were in turn responsible for research endeavors and the train-
ing and supervision of undergraduates involved in the project. The under-
graduates served as nonprofessional change agents or research assistants
within the project. They were involved in a three term sequence of formal
coursework within the Department of Psychology at Michigan State University.

The Ingham County Juvenile Court served as the referral source for
the project. The court processes approximately 600 youth annually. The
principal investigator and key court personnel delineated an administra-
tive agreement in 1975 (see Appendix A). The court, in turn, agreed to
the random assignment of subjects to condition. They also agreed to refer

only those youth that they would have normally dealt wtih either formally
30 ‘

31
or informally had the Diversion Project not been an alternative. In other
words, the court would not refer youth whom they would have warned and
released.
Subjects

Youth Referred

 

Thirty-nine youth were involved in the current research. One youth
was not included in the research analyses due to his placement on formal
probation as the result of additional court contact subsequent to his
project referral yet prior to his contact with the volunteer. The
youth ranged in age from 9 to 16 with a mean of approximately 13.9. In
addition, 28 of the youth were white and all but five were male. All
socio—economic strata were represented by the referred youth, however
middle and lower income groups were proportionally over-represented.
Petitions on referred youth included those for minor and serious misde-
meanors as well as minor felonies with the exception of one control
youth that was referred for a status offense.

Nonprofessional Volunteers

 

Twelve male and 12 female undergraduates at Michigan State University
served as project change agents. These volunteers were for the most part
social science majors in psychology or criminal justice. The majority
were juniors. Students agreed to participate in the project for a three
term sequence commencing Fall Term 1978 and ending Spring Term 1979. They
received four credits per term. Students were randomly selected from a
large group of interested students and randomly assigned to intervention

conditions.

32

Trainers/Supervisors

 

There were four people involved in the training and supervision of
undergraduate student volunteers. Three of the four were advanced stu-
dents in psychology who had been working with the Diversion Project since
its formal beginnings in April of 1977. The fourth member of the team
was a court referee or intake worker. The court referee had been involved
with the project as a consultant since its inception. More specifically,
the referee served as a guest speaker during the training phases of the
project by discussing with students the internal workings of the juvenile
court from the perspective of a court staff member.

Students were trained and supervised in small groups of six. Past
project research efforts have found this group size to be optimal with
the training and supervision of nonprofessionals in delivery of service
to delinquents in the community (Kantrowitz, 1979).

Rarely has an innovation and a dissemination spin—off been compared
directly within the same study. This study attempted to assess the impact
of returning the control of the diversion program back to the juvenile
court by training the volunteers and arranging for a court referee to
supervise the intervention process as a part of his formal job description.
In order to minimize other sources of variation, the volunteers were all
trained by project staff prior to the intervention/supervision phase.

In one intervention condition, the diversion group, both training and
supervision, were conducted by two of the graduate students. In the other
experimental condition, the court group, the students were trained by the
third graduate student and supervjsed by the court referee.

Although the three graduate students were not randomly assigned to

conditions, random assignment of three persons to two conditions makes

33
little sense. The total number of potential supervisors was limited to
project resources. The three graduate students that were available to
supervise possessed similar skills and experience in the training and
supervision phases of the project. Their assignment to intervention con-
ditions was the result of a natural rotation of staff members across the
various years of the overall project. The project hierarchical structure
is laid out in Figure 1. It will be outlined in greater detail in subse-

quent sections of this chapter

225.191

The six basic research questions raised at the conclusion of the
previous chapter (pgs. 27-29) required four experimental designs. The
first question concerning the effectiveness of the intervention strategies
as measured by the archival court, police and school outcome variables was
addressed in a three by six factorial design with repeated measures across
time. The two factors were experimental condition (diversion, court,
control) by time (four pre quarter intervals and two during quarters).

The design is laid out in Table 1.

The second, third and fourth research questions addressing the impact
of the intervention process on the day-to-day activities of the youth, the
degree of self-reported delinquent activity and the extent of self-reported
labeling were also addressed in a design with repeated measures across
time. Table 2 lays out this three (condition) by four (pre, 6 week, 12
week, and post of 18 weeks) design.

The design for the process monitoring scales is also included in
. Table 2. This research question called for a condition by time factorial
design as well. However, since it was intended solely to monitor the

intervention process, only the two experimental conditions were included

34

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

muchmwFovm mucmummpocm muchmmpocm muzmummpovm
umucm>vn x_m cmucm>wu xwm umucm>wu x_m uopcm>wu xwm
cowucm>cmucw cowpcm>cmucw
+ pcaoo + + commcm>wo +
mpmwcowu=m>cmucw mummco_pcm>cmpcw muchowucm>cmpcw mumwcowucm>cwucw
\mwmcwmcu pcmuapm \mmwcwmcp pcwuapm \mmmcwmcu pcmnaum \mmmcwmcu acmuaum
xwm xwm - xwm xwm
cowmw>cmasm -HIH —
LL g
- LOMw>LwQ3m - memmLH mLOmn>LmQ3m
F “csou mco powwoca mco pummwmmmmwh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acmmmcme powwoca
use copmmwpmm>cw Fmawucwcav

mcouuwcwo pumnoca-ou ozh

 

meanoacpm Pmcomechmmco powwoca

F mczmwd

Diversion

Court

Control

35

Table 1

Research Design for Archival Outcome Measures*

One Year Interval
Prior to Referral

During

Intervention

 

 

 

quarter quarter quarter quarter quarter quarter
1 2 3 4 5 6
1-3 1-3 1-3 1-3 1-3 1-3
1-3 1-3 1-3 1-3 1-3 1-3
1-3 1-3 1-3 1-3 1—3 1-3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l - Police Data (contacts, seriousness, disposition)

 

2 — Court Data (petitions, seriousness, disposition, incarceration)

3 - School Data (status, GPA, attendance, proportion of credits earned)

 

*
Research question 1

36

Table 2

Research Design for Nonarchival Measures

 

 

 

During Intervention
Post
Pre 6 weeks 12 weeks 18 weeks
Diversion l-3,5 1-4 1-4 1-6
Court 1-3,5 1—4 1-4 1—6
Control 1-3 1-3 1-3 1-3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l - Life Domain Measures (research question 2)

2 - Self-Reported Delinquency (research question 3)

3 — Labeling Measures (research question 4)

4 - Intervention Process Measures (research question 5)
5 - Volunteer Training Measures (research question 6)

Volunteer Attitude Measures (research question 6)

37
and only the final three time intervals (each referring to the previous
six week intervention interval) were monitored.

The final research question assessing the intervention impact on the
volunteers themselves was addressed through two post only and two pre-
post designs with the two experimental conditions serving as the other
independent variables (see Table 2). In addition, correlational matrices

of several outcome variables are presented.

Procedure

Recruitment of Students

 

During Spring Term 1978, letters were sent to 1,200 social science
majors at Michigan State University announcing the availability of a three
term course sequence in psychology. The letter described the nondidactic
nature of the course in fairly nonspecific terms (see Appendix 8). Those
students who were interested were asked to call the main project office.
Approximately 350 students called and were told the time and location of
a first meeting the subsequent week. Approximately 250 of those students
attended this original meeting. The students were given a generalpresen-
tation of the nature of the project by the principal investigator. The
project was described as being fairly demanding both in terms of time
commitments and effort required. The students were indirectly discouraged
from pursuing involvement in the project. It was explained that less than
20% of them would formally make it into the project, and that the 20% would
be randomly selected.

Following the presentation, students were allowed a question and answer
period. At this point, those that were still interested in becoming
involved in the project were asked to fill out a contract stating their

intent to remain involved in the project for the duration of the entire

38
three term period (Appendix C). It was explained to them that this agree-
ment did not guarantee that they would get into the course but it did
require them to complete further assessments. Those who completed the
student agreement were asked to fill out several measures including a
delinquency orientation measure (Lawrence, 1979), a semantic differential
used to measure attitudes relevant to the project, Jackson's Personality
Research Form (Jackson, 1968), and a measure of their locus of control.
Several of these measures were a part of the overall research project not
directly pertinent to the current research.

Selection of volunteers. An additional meeting time was scheduled

 

the following week to continue the student assessment procedures.
Approximately 100 students attended this second meeting and completed the

pre-assessment, pre-selection battery. They were told that they would@

 

 

 

receive letters in the mail during the summer asto_theirmselection status.

~—-.-._.‘..4-—- _.....—.._._ _..-Vr_ ........-

During the first week of August, 12 males and 12 females were randomly

v... H._ a.--

.u—gm

selected from that set. They were sent letters of acceptance as volunteers
into the project and were told to contact the project office within a week
as tetheici_ntsst._9f__e_r'r911.l'19-19-.£112.13???9.9.3.999??? Sequence A“ addi-
tional 12 students were sent letters explaining that they were on a waiting
list and should any other students decide not to participate in the project,
a waiting list student would be contacted. Those students who said they
weren't interested in joining the project were replaced by a randomly
selected same sex person from the waiting list group. The final 24 students
were then randomly assigned to intervention/training/supervision conditions
controlling for sex.

Selection of research assistants. A large quantity of the data

 

generated by this project was gathered through the process of conducting

39
interviews with the youth, parent and volunteer in each case at several
points in time (see measures). To facilitate this process, an additional
course was established through the Psychology Department. The course was
a three term sequence design to teach interested students social science
research methodology with a good deal of hands-on experience. Students
were recruited from the rejected volunteer pool as well as from the
guidance counselors in the psychology and criminal justice departments.
Fifteen undergraduates participated in this course sequence.

Youth Referral

 

Referrals occurred after a preliminary hearing had been held. At
this point the charges had been read to the youth, the youth had been pro-
vided his/her guaranteed legal rights, and the youth had the opportunity
to plead guilty or not guilty to the charges as stated. If the youth
denied the charges, a formal hearing was scheduled before a judge and the
youth was provided a court appointed attorney. If the youth plead guilty
to the charges, referral to the Diversion Project became an option available
to the court referee. At this point, the referee provided the youth and
parent with a brief description of the project and offered to set up a
meeting with a project staff member to discuss the project in more detail.
Those youth who voluntarily decided that they were interested in the pro-
ject scheduled an appointment to talk to project staff.

Project staff provided the youth and parent with a more detailed
description of the Diversion Project. The youth were told that they would
be matched with a student volunteer from Michigan State University who
would work with them on a one-to-one basis for a period of approximately
‘ eighteen weeks. They were told that they would be required to work with

the volunteer approximately six to eight hours a week. The youth were

40
then provided with a brief description of what activities typically occur
when working with volunteers and what areas in the youth's life might be
open to intervention. It was then pointed out that there were several
things that both the youth and the parent should be aware of before they
agreed to participate in the project: (1) not everyone could get into the
project, and (2) roughly three-quarters of those that decided to partici-
pate in the project did actually get matched to volunteers.

It was further explained that in either case, the youth and parent
would be asked to assist in the evaluation of the project. At this point,
the data gathering commitments and time intervals were outlined for the
youth and parent. In addition, the confidentiality and anonymity of the
data was stressed. The project was described as being totally voluntary.
The youth and parent were told that they would be returned to the referee
if they chose not to participate in the project. The referee would then
decide what alternative course of action would be most appropriate. If
the youth and parent decided that they wished to participate in the pro-
ject, they were asked to sign several participation agreements. A
referral sheet containing some demographic information was filled out
(see Appendix D), and the parent and youth were then asked to sign a
release of court and police records (see Appendix E), and a release of
school records form (see Appendix F)«//At this point, the random assign-
ment of youth to conditions was made. This was accomplished by randomly
drawing envelopes which had enclosed cards identifying experimental condi-
tion. ’Envelopes were stratified by referral referee, sex, race, and order
of referral of the youth as well as the seriousness of the referred peti-
tion.v (The seriousness was determined by the stated intent of the court

referee to handle the case in a formal or informal nature should the case

41

become a control and be returned to the referee for an alternative dispo-
sition decision.) The 39 youth referred to the project were then randomly
assigned to treatment condition (diversion, court and control). Both
experimental and control referrals were then told that interviewers
would be getting in touch with them within the next few days. Experimen-
tal youth and parents were told that a volunteer would be getting in con-
tact with them within a day or two after the interviewer contacted them.

Referrals began the middle of October and continued until all 24
volunteers were matched with youth. This random assignment process
resulted in 15 youth being assigned to the control condition. The final
referral was made February 6, allowing ample time to complete the 18
week intervention interval prior to the end of Spring Term classes in
early June.

Assignment of Youth to Student Volunteers

 

Within the experimental conditions, youth were randomly matched to
student volunteer. However, students who did not have cars were assigned
youth who lived on or near to community bus routes.

Students were instructed to make a telephone contact with the youth
immediately upon assignment and set up an initial meeting. For the
remainder of that youth's involvement in the project (eighteen school
weeks), the youth and student were expected to spend six to eight hours
a week working together.

Volunteer Training

 

Classes were scheduled to meet on a weekly basis. During the majority
of the first quarter, approximately eight weeks, classes were devoted to
training and supervision of any assigned cases. Classes during the first

term were scheduled to run a duration of two and a half hours to allow

42
time for training and possible supervision of cases. During the remain-
ing two terms of involvement, classes were scheduled for two hours.

During the first eight weeks of training, weekly portions of a train-
ing manual, which was designed specifically to assist in the training of
students in the intervention techniques employed by the project, were
distributed to the students. Manuals incorporated weekly presentation of
the material as well as a presentation of assigned outside readings (on
reserve in the library) and weekly assignments.

During training, classroom sessions began with a short question and
answer period during which time students were allowed to ask supervisors
any questions pertaining to that week's material. Following this session,
students were required to respond to written quiz material. After the
written quizzes, the instructor or trainer graded the papers and the
entire group discussed the material relevant to the questions. Following
the written questions, students were required to respond to a series of
oral questions. These oral questions were similar in content; however,
the oral procedure allowed for a more direct interaction on the part of
students involved.

Due to the intervention nature of the project, students were required
to master each week's material. In the event that a student missed
either a written or oral question, that student was asked to return
directly to the material pertinent to that item and rewrite the response
to that item. In addition, that student was required to respond to an
extra question designed by the supervisor to assist the student in
recovering the missed material. During training phases of the project,
grades were assigned to students as a function of three criteria. The

criteria were: attendance to weekly meetings, responding correctly to

43

written questions, and responding correctly to oral questions. Students
that satisfied the above criteria received a 4.0 for the week's material.
Students that responded incorrectly to any of the written or oral ques-
tions but returned the rewrites to the supervisor within the next three
school days received a 3.0 for that week's material. In the event that a
student missed a rewrite as well, an individual session was scheduled
between that student and the trainer.

Upon being assigned a youth, the student volunteer's responsibilities
increased dramatically (see supervision).

Diversion training. The diversion condition model was a direct

 

follow-up of those procedures that resulted from the Illinois Project
described earlier. Though extensive modifications had been made in the
several years since the Illinois Project, direct links were apparent. The
advocacy and contracting strategies developed in the Illinois Project were
combined to allow a multi-faceted intervention program. The general model
of intervention followed a problem solving approach that can be broken into
four chronological phases. The volunteer's initial involvement in the
project involved getting to know the youth and focusing on initial assess-
ment strategies. These assessment strategies designed to identify signifi-
cant others in the youth's environment, potential reinforcers in the
youth's environment, areas of conflict, areas of unmet needs, appropriately
targeted persons who might be able to satisfy unmet needs, etc. Upon com-
pletion of the initial assessment process, the youth, volunteer, and
significant others decided on a global intervention plan.

A second phase of the intervention process emphasized continued
assessment, the generation of alternative courses of action, the assess-
ment of probable outcomes, and the specification of detailed strategies

for intervention.

44

The third phase involved direct monitoring of the strategies imple—
mented. This monitoring was designed to provide all involved sources
with direct feedback about the ongoing effectiveness of the strategies
employed. Direct monitoring allowed for the refinement of strategies as
well as the implementation of new strategies that were more appropriate.

It should be emphasized that the assessment phases of the project also
continued throughout all other phases. This allowed the student and
volunteer to be reactive to changes within the youth's environment.

As discussed earlier, the initial eight weeks of a student volunteer's
involvement was spent primarily in training. The training followed a
sequence portrayed in the training manual initially developed during the
Illinois Project. As noted earlier, this manual has since gone through
extensive revisions (see Appendix G). A brief overview of the training
follows.

The first week provided an overview of the three quarter sequence
course, formated expectations of students, and detailed training procedures.
The confidential nature of any information gathered in conjunction with
course involvement was stressed. The first week's manual then developed
a history of the juvenile justice system from its informal beginnings in
the late eighteen hundreds through the uprisings of the mid 1960's
epitomized by Gault (1967). An overview of the local juvenile justice
system followed. This section was followed by the development of clear
rationale for the need to divert juveniles from the juvenile justice sys-
tem. The first week's section of the manual concluded with the develop-
ment of the behavioral conceptions of the human behavior model and its
relationship to juvenile delinquency. The rationale behind this model

ultimately led to the behavioral contracting model employed by the project.

45

The second week of training outlined in the manual developed the
environmental resources conception of human behavior and the rationale
for multi-level training when working with youth. The environmental
resources conception of human behavior led to the development of the
advocacy model also incorporated in the diversion training condition.

The third week of training emphasized assessment as a necessary pre-
decessor to intervention. Assessment strategies were developed to
correspond with both the advocacy and contracting models. Prior to
performing an advocacy intervention, areas of unmet need had to be
detailed, the location and identification of potential resources that
could meet those needs had to be determined, the individuals that control
those resources had to be identified, and the targeted individual's vul-
nerabilities had to be defined. In order to perform behavioral interven-
tion strategies, it was first necessary to identify problem areas, poten-
tial reinforcers, natural mediators or significant others and the present
operating contingencies. The fact that the two assessment paradigms
(advocacy and contracting) were not incompatible and could occur simul-
taneously was also emphasized.

The fourth week was devoted to experience in assessment by the stu-
dents. During the week, students were given two assignments: (1) to
develop a behavioral assessment paradigm, and (2) to collect the necessary
information for an advocacy assessment. Class time was devoted to review-
ing these homework assignments. Particular attention was given to the
assessment steps outlined during the previous week as well as to the
specificity apparent in the student's assessment strategies. Additional
class time was devoted to several role plays dealing with situations such
as speaking to the youth for the first time on the phone and in person.

Also, initial meetings with family members and teachers were role played.

46

As noted earlier, the assessment phases of the total project model
were developed as a necessary preliminary step to intervention. The
fifth week was devoted to the selection and initiation of intervention
strategies based upon assessment. Again, both the advocacy and contrac-
ting models were outlined in this section of the manual. When contracting
was used, a plan of action was developed involving the negotiation of a
contract between the youth and significant others. This negotiation
involved development of reciprocal exchanges of responsibilities and
privileges for all parties involved. The contract also incorporated
bonuses for exceptional performance as well as sanctions for poor perfor-
mance. A detailed monitoring system was also included. The volunteer
served as a mediator between the youth and other parties involved in
negotiation of the contract.

Advocacy intervention was described as developing along two continua.
(A graphic depiction of the dimensions [Davidson & Rapp, 1976] is on
page 243 in the manual (see Appendix G). The targeted individual who was
identified as controlling the needed reinforcers could exist at either
the individual, administrative, or policy level. Also, the intervention
strategy could take on the format of a positive, neutral, or negative
approach.

Once again, role plays were incorporated into this week's training.
The contracting role play involved a description of a youth and some
problem areas or desires on the part of the youth as well as a descrip-
tion of the youth's parents and some of their desires. The role play
involved preliminary assessment, the proposition of the contract to the
parties involved, introductory discussion of contracting, and the begin-

nings of a negotiation session. The advocacy role play incorporated the

47
description of a youth with some unmet needs. Students were assigned
different cells within the two dimensional advocacy intervention model
and were asked to role play their approach to the targeted individuals.

The sixth week continued the practice of contracting and advocacy
interventions. Students continued the contracting role play begun during
week five and proceeded to formulate a detailed contract satisfactory to
all parties involved. Additional hypothetical advocacy situations were
presented and role played in a similar fashion to those completed during
week five. In addition, the manual outlined several case studies that
typified problems frequently encountered by students working with youth.

Week seven was devoted to the monitoring of intervention strategies
employed. Evaluation of intervention strategies was described as an
essential ingredient in any intervention model. Students were taught
that they needed to continually seek feedback pertaining to the effec—
tiveness of strategies employed. Methodology and pitfalls frequently
encountered in monitoring were pointed out and decision rules for the
potential renegotiation of contracts as well as the occasional necessity
for secondary advocacy efforts were discussed. Again, role plays were
heavily emphasized during class sessions.

The eighth and final week focused on termination of the youth's
formal involvement from the project. The eighteenth week termination
point was always clearly defined during the initial week of intervention
and used as a firm point in time around which to set goals. Week eight
training, therefore, focused on the final two to three weeks of inter-
vention. During this time, the volunteer instructed the youth and sig-
nificant others in the methods used by the volunteer during intervention.

The intention was that the youth and parents would then be able to

48
continue to implement the skills developed in the project following
formal termination from the project.

Court training. The court training was identical to the procedures

 

outlined in the diversion training condition. A detailing of major dis-
crepancies follows. During week one training, the notion of diversion was
deleted from the training as well as the training manual (pn17a. This
information was replaced with a more detailed development of the apparent
manpower shortages within formal probate court staff. In addition, the
classroom procedures detailing the use of two graduate students during the
training phase was modified to read the single graduate student (pgs.l65-167).
Similar modifications were made in the manual during the second week's
training as the issue of labeling (the development of the line of reason—
ing that formal juvenile justice system contact frequently leads to further
delinquent activity) was removed (p.186). The remainder of the manual and
training sessions directly followed the procedures outlined under the di-
versioniwaining condition. The true training conditions, therefore,

were nearly identical throughout the entire eight week involvement.

Interviewer Training

 

Interviews were conducted by students involved in an additional three
term practicum for undergraduates. These students were also subjected to
an initial strenuous training period that incorporated both reading assign-
ments and examinations as well as modeling, practice, and role playing.
Initial instruction involved detailing the overall procedures of the pro-
ject and its involvement with the local schools and juvenile justice system.
Students were then presented with outlines for material to be covered
during interviews and listened to practice tapes or tapes of interviews

conducted by previous interviewers.

49

During the first weeks of their involvement, the students accompanied
and observed interviewers involved in ongoing cases as they conducted inter-
views in real settings. Students then began practicing interviews among
themselves during class time while supervisors observed and provided feed-
back. Students received practice interview assignments to be completed
with other project staff members and recorded on tape. The tapes were
then brought back for feedback from supervisors.

By following this format, students learned the procedure and open-
ended nature of the interviews while following a nondetailed outline
prior to actually seeing the item set to which they would ultimately
respond. Following this initial training, interviewers were taught the
detailed procedures of responding to the items, coding all the information,
compiling all the material gathered on a case by case basis, and procedures
for labeling and turning in the material.

Once the supervisors felt the interviewers had learned or mastered
the necessary skills, a practice interview was again assigned and the
interviewer completed an entire interview and coded the information. The
supervisors were then able to assess the interviewer's readiness in a live
situation.

Once training was completed, interviewers were assigned cases in such
a manner that an interviewer was responsible for all the sources and all
the waves related to a single case. This meant that a single interviewer
followed a particular case throughout its involvement in the project.
Interviewers were assigned four cases apiece while requiring each to
participate in an interérater case. In the event of an inter-rater pair,
one interviewer was assigned the case and conducted the entire interview

throughout all four waves. The second interviewer accompanied the former

50

and observed and recorded the interview. This allowed a direct assess—
ment of exact inter-rater agreement of rated items and the computation of
correlations between inter—rater scale scores. Research experience has
demonstrated inter-rater exact agreement to be in the .60's. The scale
by scale inter-rater correlations are presented with each specific measure.
The supervisors continually checked data as it was turned in and monitored
tapes of interviews throughout the duration of each interviewer's involve-
ment in the project.

Supervision

 

Diversionsupervision. The remainder of the first term (following the

 

eight weeks of training) and the subsequent second and third terms were
devoted entirely to the supervision of cases. Each student with a case
presented a summary of the past week's activities beginning with the goals
identified by the student. The presentation then chronologically out-
lined critical activities of the past week, particularly as they related
to stated goals and objectives. The presentation concluded with some
statements concerning what the student intended to do during the coming
week. The small group format allowed for in-depth discussion of details
pertaining to each case as well as brainstorming and group problem solving
as issues arose.

The overall intervention model defined each volunteer as well as the
graduate students in each supervision group as an experimental person
capable of assisting and generating alternatives that might be appropriate
as intervention strategies for any given case. Students' grades were
based primarily on demonstrated case responsibility. Class presentations,
contribution to discussion of others' cases, weekly progress reports, and

attendance were also considered.

51
Supervision also afforded the project an opportunity to have direct
input to volunteers in terms of guaranteeing adherence to the model. It
provided the volunteers with a frequently needed source of encouragement
should the going get rough. The two diversion supervision groups con-
sisted of six trained undergraduate volunteers working with two graduate
students.

Court supervision. Following training, supervision of the court con-

 

dition was transferred to the court staff. Training had been completed by
a graduate student on the project while supervision was conducted by a
court referee that has been involved in the project as a consultant since
its beginnings. The court referee was provided with a training manual and
several sessions were spent outlining strategies discussed in the manual.
In addition, training in the supervision strategies employed by the pro-
ject and the rationale for all components of supervision were detailed.
Students were required to maintain the identical written records and were
graded on the same basis as students in the diversion condition.

The court referee met with his students to supervise volunteer inter-
vention on a weekly basis for a period of two hours. These sessions were
audio-taped and regularly reviewed by the principal investigator. The
principal investigator and court referee met regularly in order to pro-
vide feedback. However, adherence to model was flgt stressed during these
sessions. The rationale for this entire research effort lies in the impact
on intervention due to varying supervision strategies employed by the
referee.

It was felt that both the youth and his/her family, as well as the
volunteer, might perceive their involvement in the project as a direct

involvement with the court structure. The nondiversionary nature of this

52
perception was expected to have impact on the intervention strategies
employed. The impact was monitored by process measures that were then
related to outcome results.

Intervention

 

The intervention process can be seen as a series of steps that do
not necessarily follow in a clearly defined sequential fashion. The
general steps were introduction, assessing the youth's situation, selec-
ting strategies for intervention, monitoring intervention strategies, and
finally termination. The introductory period was seen as a one to two
week period spent primarily just getting to know the youth. It overlapped
somewhat with the initial assessment phases as the two were not mutually
exclusive. Assessment continued throughout the entire involvement in the
project as new areas of unmet need or interpersonal problems appeared.
Strategy selection was obviously dependent upon the assessment phases that
had been completed and led directly to the intervention phase. Monitoring
can be seen as a system of evaluating the nature of the impact resulting
from intervention. This monitoring evaluation frequently had consequential
impact upon ongoing intervention strategies. These consequences took the
form of either encouragement, a strong suggestion for the need for renego-
tiating a contract, or the need for secondary advocacy efforts. Termina-
tion was a transition from the actual intervention phases of the project
to a point in time where the youth was no longer formally involved in the
project. This entire process can be seen as a series of overlapping steps.
A graphical presentation of this cycle is shown in the last page of the
diversion manual (Appendix G).

Diversion intervention. Students, upon being assigned to youth,

 

were instructed to call the youth immediately and set up a meeting time.

53
They were encouraged to plan some activity during the initial meeting to
allow for something to divert attention from the formality of the begin-
nings of project involvement. It was, however, suggested that the activity
not be so all encompassing to be a detriment to conversation. This initial
meeting was seen as a means of establishing the initiation of assessment
strategies. The first two to four weeks focused primarily upon getting
to know the youth, his or her likes and dislikes, significant others,
problem areas, areas of unmet needs, etc. These initial recreational/
discussion/assessment sessions with the youth frequently led to the
involvement of others in the assessment phase. The others involved were
most frequently parents, peers, teachers, or counselors. The information
gathered during this assessment phase was generally sufficient to cover
material needed to design a contracting or advocacy intervention strategy.

The information gathered during this phase of the involvement was
presented to the supervision group on a weekly basis. The supervision
group was then in a position to be able to assist the volunteer in out-
lining alternative intervention strategies to deal with specific problem
areas present as well as to assess the probable outcomes of these inter-
vention strategies prior to actual implementation. The volunteer was
then in a position to discuss the most appropriate alternatives directly
with those involved in the youth's environment.

Should the volunteer decide that a behavioral contract seemed most
appropriate, the first step was to meet separately with the parties
involved and present the general notion of contracting. The volunteer
then directed each party to detail a list of things they would like
changed in their interpersonal network. Having laid the groundwork for

an actual contracting session, the volunteer then brought the lists of

54
potential changes suggested by either party to the next supervision meet-
ing. The supervision group assisted the volunteer in outlining potential
contractual agreements. The volunteer then scheduled a session with all
parties involved and began the actual negotiation process. Ultimately, a
reciprocal contractual agreement emerged. The framework for the negotia-
tion of contracts, the principal components of contracts, and example con-
tracts are included in the training manual (Appendix G) as well as in
Stuart (1971) and DeRici and Butz (1975).

Should the assessment strategies have suggested the need for an
advocacy effort on the part of the volunteer, the student began by pre-
senting the needs of the youth to the supervision group. The group then
assisted the volunteer in identifying appropriate individuals within the
community that held the reinforcers needed to bring about the desired
change in the youth's environment as suggested by the assessment strategy.
Following the identification of the most appropriate target individual,
the volunteer began to compile information concerning the vulnerabilities
of that individual. Again, alternative strategies were discussed in the
supervision group and the most reasonable alternative was ultimately
implemented.

Following the initiation of an intervention strategy, monitoring
became a necessary component. The monitoring focused on the actual imple-
mentation of the intervention strategy as well as the effectiveness of
that intervention strategy. Through the use of these monitoring endeavors,
the volunteer was able to stay on top of ongoing changes in the total situa-
tion and react appropriately.

During the initial months of intervention, the volunteer performed

various tasks on behalf of the youth. These tasks included things such

55
as advocacy efforts or the mediation of contract negotiation sessions. As
time progressed, the volunteer made every effort to involve the youth to
a greater and greater extent during the intervention processes. By the
sixteenth week, the volunteer began to make direct efforts at training
the youth and/or significant others in the techniques developed by the
project. The volunteer began describing in great detail the contracting
model and the general strategy of advocacy to both the youth and his/her
parents. This instruction, coupled with the modeling impact of strategies
already successfully completed and subsequent role plays of hypothetical
situations, was intended to leave the youth and parents in a situation in
which they would be capable of continuing these efforts on their own.
Hypothetical case studies are included in week six of the training manual
(Appendix G).

Court intervention. Once again, training efforts suggested that

 

court intervention should follow or resemble closely the intervention
detailed in the action intervention segment. As was outlined earlier in
the training sections, the training was virtually identical throughout the
entire eight weeks. Potential intervention differences arose because of
the differential nature of the supervision of volunteers during the inter-
vention phases of the program. These differences were most likely due
either to labeling processes or simply the perception of continued involve-
ment in the court system. The differential treatment of the volunteers
during supervision had a significant impact on the intervention process.
The evaluation of this impact (diversion vs. nondiversion) on the primary
outcome variables and the relationship to process scales were the major

thrust of the current research.

56
Measures

Archival Measures

 

The three sources of archival outcome data were collected semi—
annually. They were coded into four quarters of pre data (totalling
one year) and two quarters of during data (see Table l, p. 35). This
archival outcome data was collected by graduate research assistants work-
ing on the project with assistance from undergraduates. Data collectors
were unaware of the experimental condition of the youth.

During the time frame within which the current research took place,
adult records from one of the larger police precincts in the county were
not available to project staff. This problem, coupled with the fact that
several youth were incarcerated at various points during their involvement
in the project, led to the conclusion that the number of police contacts
and court petitions variables might be misleading. More specifically, the
archival outcome measures were not sensitive to official contact with the
system by seventeen year olds. And, youth that were incarcerated for a
significant length of time would show disproportionately low annual offense
rates when compared with youth that were at risk throughout the entire year.

Two examples should serve to clarify the issue. In the case of incar-
ceration, if two youth each had two official contacts with the system
during the one year pre interval, yet one was incarcerated for six months,
it would make little sense to construe them each as having equal annual
offense rates. The latter youth's rate might be interpreted as equivalent
to four annual contacts. Similarly, youth with additional police contacts
that became seventeen during the data gathering interval had them
recorded as adult offenses that were not necessarily available to the
research project. Thus, the concept of time at risk became conceptually

critical within this research effort.

57
Therefore, the data sets were modified by dividing contacts or

petition rates by the months at risk during that quarter and multiplying
by the constant three in order to retain the data in quarter scores (3
months). This operation had the effect of maintaining the compatibility
of the quarter time intervals while accounting for the fact that some of
the youth who had been institutionalized or had turned of age during a
particular quarter were not at risk for that entire quarter interval.

Police records. Archival police data continues to serve as a fre-

 

quently utilized success criteria when intervening with delinquents. The
frequency of contacts, average seriousness of contacts (modified Sellin

& Wolfgang, 1964; see Appendix H), and the most serious disposition of any
contacts for each quarter interval were gathered for each youth (see
Appendix H). Police data was gathered from all major police departments
in the county as well as from the county sheriff, the local state police
offices and several township departments.

Court records. Archival court data is another frequently used

 

success criteria. The frequency of court petitions, average seriousness
of the petitions (see Appendix H), most serious disposition (see Appendix
H), and length of incarceration were gathered for each youth for each
quarter interval from the county juvenile court.

School records. As mentioned earlier, during intake interviews the

 

youth and parent were asked to sign a release of school records. These
release forms were taken directly to the schools to gather grade point
average, enrollment status, attendance and credits earned records for

each youth in the project.

58

Interview Based Measures

 

Interviews were conducted with the youth and one or both parents.

If the case was not a control, the volunteer was also interviewed. These
interviews were conducted at four points during the youth's formal involve-
ment with the project (within a few days of the initial referral, 6

weeks into the intervention interval, 12 weeks into the intervention,

and 18 weeks into the intervention interval or at termination from project
involvement). The intake or time one interviews served as pre measures,
therefore, the volunteers were excluded from this first wave of interviews
since they had not yet had any contact with the youth (see Table 2, p. 36).
Interviews were generally conducted at the source's residence.

The interview format itself followed a fairly open-ended, conversa-
tional, unstructured format. The interview process was designed to allow
the source to discuss and/or describe relevant activities that had been
occurring in their life. The interviewer essentially guided the source
through the areas of concern. Interviewers were then required to respond
to approximately 400 items pertaining to the information required. The
interviews were audio—recorded, thus allowing the interviewer to go back
to the tape to retrieve any lost information while responding to the items.
The audio-tapes allowed the interviewer to focus his/her attention upon
the interview itself rather than being continually forced to record infor-
mation.

The items were combined to form scales using a rational/empirical
method (Jackson, 1971; Selltiz, Wrightman, & Cook, 1976). After removing
items on the basis of low endorsement frequencies, initial scales were
created by rational groupings of the items. The internal consistency of

these groupings was then determined and final scaling decisions were made

59
according to two criteria. First, in order for an item to remain in its
scale, it had to show a significant correlation with the sum of other
items on the scale. Second, the item had to demonstrate a significantly
higher correlation with its own scale than with any other scale. If it
showed a greater degree of convergence with another scale, it was moved
if the move was to a rationally sound alternative. Otherwise, the item
was discarded from further analysis efforts. This rather lengthy process
of scale construction produced scales which were maximally reliable and
maximally orthogonal.

Life domain measures. The life domain portion of the interviews

 

was designed to assess the impact of the intervention process upon daily
activities in the lives of youth involved in the project. Scale construc-
tion efforts resulted in eleven life domain scales that retained the same
consistency during the last two re-analysis efforts. The internal consis-
tency alphas of the life domain scales ranged from .59 to .91 with a mean
of .76. Repeated multitrait-multimethod analysis efforts (with scales
serving as traits and sources as methods) demonstrated good convergent

and discriminant validity properties (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Emshoff,
1980). However, the interviewer agreement figures suggested that the
interviewers had difficulty agreeing on the concepts represented by the
life domain scales. These scales were dropped from further analysis due
to this unreliability in the measures.

Self-reported delinquency measure. Although archival data is often

 

reported in outcome studies with adolescents in legal jeopardy, it has
often been criticized as more a measure of the behavior of legal system
officials (teachers, principals, police and court workers) than a measure

of deviant behavior (e.g., Farrington, 1973; Gold, 1966). Thus, in this

60
study, the differential impact of volunteer supervision upon youth's delin-
quent activities as reported by him/herself was examined in addition to
the more traditional measures.

Items for this measure were drawn from items used by Lincoln, Teil-
mann, Klein and Labin (1977), Gold (1970), and several items written by
the project research staff (Blakely, Kushler, Parisian & Davidson, 1980).
The item set was designed to determine the self-reported incidence of
behaviors representing a wide spectrum of frequently occurring delinquent
activities. Thus, infrequently occurring behaviors such as extremely
serious crimes against a person were excluded. In addition, the 35-item
set included five filler items depicting positive activities in an attempt
to discourage response patterns or bias (see Appendix I). Youth were asked
whether they had committed each behavior once, twice, more than twice or
not at all during the last six weeks. These items generated one major
scale.

The measure was administered at the four interview time periods,
immediately following the process interviews (see Table 2, p. 36). In
order to avoid problems due to inconsistent reading abilities of the inter-
viewees, the items were read aloud to the youth and responses were recorded
by the interviewer.

During the past four years of the project, this scale has consistently
yielded alphas in the mid-eighties and intersource correlations have
averaged in the mid-forties. The scale has also correlated with official
archival data in the upper .20's (Blakely, et al., 1980).

Labeligg measures. During the interviews, following the administra-

 

tion of the self-report instrument, a modified version of the labeling

theory assessment devices developed by Klein was administered (Klein,

61
Teilmann, Lincoln, & Labin, 1978). The four steps of Klein's model were
measured through the use of the archival outcome data and the administra-
tion of a labeling questionnaire. The instruction sheet and recording form
for the labeling questionnaire are included in Appendices J and K, respec-
tively. Five scales were constructed through the rational-empirical
method, four were used in the current research.

The reliability figures for the four scales are included in the dis-
cussion of each scale below. Strong convergent and discriminant validity
properties of the scales (Campbell & Fiske, 1959) were evidenced given the
particular pattern of correlations in the original multitrait-multimethod
matrix. A summary table of this matrix is included in Table 3.

(1) Police reference. This scale consisted of a simple sum of the

 

items in the first column of the label spread answer sheet excluding the

stepmother, stepfather, guardian and minister sources (see Appendix K).

 

Therefore, an example might be: ”Did others at school know about your con-
tact with the police?" The internal consistency alpha for the scale was

.84.

(2) Court reference. This scale assessed the extent to which signifi-

 

cant others in the youth's life Were aware of the court contact that led
to the youth's referral to the project. An example item would include:

“Did your neighbors know about your contact with the juvenile court?"

 

This scale consisted of the same nine source referents as coded in the
second column of the label spread answer sheet (see Appendix K). The
internal consistency for this scale was .83.

(3) Project reference. This scale consisted of a sum of the source

 

referent scores as coded in the third column (see Appendix K). The scale

assessed the extent to which significant others in the youth's life were

62

Table 3

Labeling Scales Intercorrelations

Monotrait-heteromethod

Youth
with
Parent

.63
.83
.57
.28

 

Youth
Mean Raflg§_
.27 .01 to .54
.23 -.O4 to .54
.21 .10 to .43
.05 .01 to .10

Monomethod-heterotrait

Parent
User; My:
.31 -.19 to
.28 -.O7 to
.13 -.01 to
.21 .06 to

.57
.57
.26
.26

 

Label Spread - Police Reference
Label Spread - Court Reference

Label Spread - Project Reference

Label Acceptance/Rejection

63
aware of his/her involvement in the project. For example, "00 teachers

and administrators at school know of your involvement in this project?"

 

The internal consistency alpha for this scale was .65.

(4) Label acceptance/rejection. This scale assessed the extent to

 

which the youth felt the awareness and opinion of these significant others
was important to him/her. An example item included: "How important is it

to you what others at school think of you?" The scale was composed of the

 

coded responses from the same nine sources in the fifth column of the
label spread answer sheet (see Appendix K). The internal consistency for
this scale was .80.

Process measures. The intervention process portion of the interviews

 

was designed specifically to monitor the intervention activities of the
volunteers. It is frequently the case that innovations implemented in
different settings result in drastic modifications of the intervention
model as it was intended to be implemented. These scales were designed
to monitor the specifics of the intervention process both in terms of
strategies used (contracting and advocacy) and areas of implementation
(school or legal system, etc.). Scale construction activities resulted
in thirteen intervention process scales that have yielded consistent
scale properties in the last several re-analysis efforts. The internal
consistency figures for each scale are included with the specific des-
scriptions for each scale below. They ranged from .58 to .92 with a mean
of .79. Strong convergent and discriminant validity properties were also
demonstrated by the process intervention scales (Campbell & Fiske, 1959).
The multitrait-multimethod matrix summary table is included in Table 4.

The interviewer agreement reliability figures are included in Table 5.

4 —-—4__,___.___4 a -v H

64

._o>mp

po. mop pm pcoopppcopm mew mm. cocp cmpomcm mcoppopmccou
._m>mp mo. ogp pm pcoupppcmpm mco om. cusp cmpomcm mcoppopwccoo

—

 

 

 

 

 

 

spoox mcpmcogo co mouod ”appEod u N
moppp>ppoo xumoo>oo oppsu u mp mpcocoo mcpmcocu co mouod "appEom u o
moppp>ppom moppoocpcou pocop>ozom u Np mmppp>ppoo pocoppomcomm u m
pomem>po>cp EmpmAm pommp u pp pcoso>po>cp coma u o
mcpxmmm goo u op pcoEm>po>cp popcocoo u m
:poo» mcpmcozo co mouod "poozom u o pcmsm>po>cp w>pppmoo\mpcpo_oeoo mo poop n m
poozom mcpmcogo co moood "poogom u w pcoew>po>cp pomcop\cmmpcopo> n _
Km. op mo. mm. no. op mo. mm. mm. op No. mm. me. pm. pm. .m—
mm. op mo.- om. om. op mo. mm. mm. op mo.- mm. mm. pm. om. .Np
mm. op po. op. mm. op po.- op. mm. op No. op. No. pm. mm. .pp
um. op moo.- Np. om. op po.- op. mo. op No. mp. pm. om. mm. .op
om. op Np. mm. mm. op mo. om. om. op mo. pm. om. mm. mm. .m
on. op oo. mm. mm. op poo. om. om. op pp. mm. mm. mm. om. .w
pm. op No. um. mm. op oooo.- om. mu. op mo. pm. pm. op. om. .n
pm. op mo. pm. em. op poo. mm. mm. op pp. om. op. mm. mm. .m
om. op moo.- mm. mm. op oo. om. oo. op po.- om. mm. pm. mm. .m
mm. op mo. mm. mm. op po.- mm. mo. op op. pm. we. no. mm. .o
mm. op mo. om. om. op wo.- mm. mm. op moo.- mm. pm. om. pm. .m
po. op po. om. om. op No. om. oo. op mo. mm. mm. mm. mm. .N
mm. op po.- pm. mm. op oo. mm. om. op oo.- mm. no. we. om. ._
mmcom com: omcom coo: omcoz coo: coopcopo> compcopo> pcmcoo
cppz cppz sppz
coopcopo> pcmcoo :p:o> pcmcoo cp3o> cp3o>

ppocpocmpoguoogpoEocoz

F

v macaw

A.wpe=ooa_o Appoppa>. ..a.pv

mcoppopoccoucmpcp mopmom mmoooco coppco>copcp

vocmeocmpwglppocpocoz

65

Table 5

Inter-Interviewer Agreement Correlations
Intervention Process Scales

Within Interviewer

Between Correlations
Interviewers Range

Scale Correlation Lg_ Hi_ .Mean
Amount of Time .81 -.O9 .66 .38
Positive Involvement .16 -.Ol .49 .21
Parental Involvement .65 .02 .76 .35
Peer Involvement .17 .Ol .59 .30
Recreational Activities .71 .03 .52 .36
Home Involvement: Focus on Parent .84 .04 .77 .45
Home Involvement: Focus on Youth .68 .04 .81 .38
School Involvement: Focus on School .85 .14 .59 .30
School Involvement: Focus on Youth .81 .22 .69 .44
Employment Activities .85 .03 .43 .25
Legal Involvement .44 .00 .49 .19
Contracting Activities .96 .04 .78 .39
Advocacy Activities .58 .04 .76 .35

.65 .33

66
The process intervention data was gathered at three time points

(6, 12 and 18 weeks into the intervention interval; see Table 2, p. 36).
At each data gathering point, information was collected concerning
specific intervention activities that occurred during the previous six
week interval. Therefore, it was gathered from experimental cases only.
The relationship between these findings and the archival outcome results
were determined and noted where significant. Results of nine of these
scales were included in this research.

(1) Amount of time. This three item scale assessed the frequency

 

and amount of contact the volunteer invested in intervention related
activities. An example item was: "How much time does the volunteer
spend working on the case?" The Cronbach alpha was .76.

(2) Volunteer contacts. Although this measure was not a process

 

interview scale, per se, it was included in this section due to its
conceptual proximity to the amount of time scale. The volunteers were
required to keep a log book recording all of their case related contacts.
The volunteer contacts item was simply a sum of the number of in-person
contacts between the volunteer and youth during the intervention interval.

(3) Recreational activities. This scale reflected the extent that

 

recreational activities comprised a part of the intervention process. The
basic dimension was the frequency of recreational activities that the
volunteer and youth engaged in together. Example item: ”How often do

the youth and volunteer participate in purchased recreational activities
together?” The scale consisted of three items which had a scale alpha

of .66.

(4) Home involvement focused on changing the parent. This scale was

 

aimed at assessing the extent to which intervention activities were

67
concerned with changes in the home/family area. More specifically, it
was designed to determine the extent that these changes were intended to
change the parents' behavior. Example item: "To what extent is the
intervention focused on getting the parents to improve their household
rules?" This scale consisted of eight items which had an alpha level of
.78.

(5) Home involvement focused on changing the youth. This scale was

 

intended to assess the extent to which home/family intervention activities
were focused on changing the youth's behavior. Example item: "To what
extent is the intervention focused on the youth doing more household
chores?” This scale consisted of five items that had a scale alpha of
.73.

(6) School intervention focused on changing the school. This scale

 

was focused on the extent to which the volunteer engaged in activity
aimed at bringing about improvement in the school area while the efforts
were directed toward the actions of the school staff rather than the
youth per se. Example item: ”To what extent is the volunteer working
on curriculum changes?” This six item scale yielded an alpha of .78.

(7) School intervention focused on changing the youth. This scale
was aimed at assessing intervention activities which were focused on the
school behavior of the youth. Example item: "To what extent is the
volunteer trying to get the youth to do more homework?" This scale
consisted of eight items with a scale alpha of .87.

(8) Legal system intervention. This scale reflected the extent to

 

which the volunteer became involved in the juvenile justice system while
working with the youth. Example item: "Has the volunteer assisted in
negotiating a court disposition?“ This scale consisted of 11 items

which had a scale alpha of .83.

68

(9) Contracting, This scale was developed to reflect volunteer actions

 

representative of the behavioral contracting model of intervention. Items
represented sequential steps in the contracting model beginning with
assessment and ending with the instruction of the youth and significant
others in the specifics of the contracting methodology. This nine item
scale produced an alpha of .93.

(10) Advocacy. This scale consisted of items reflective of interven-
tion activities required by the advocacy model of intervention. More
specifically, the scale was designed to determine the extent to which the
volunteer was intervening on behalf of the youth to gain needed resources.
Example item: "To what extent has the volunteer specified individuals in
control of needed resources?" This scale consisted of 10 items which had
a scale alpha of .76.

Nonprofessional Volunteer Measures

 

As with the youth process data, there were several aspects of the non-
professional volunteers' experience which were related to intervention
implementation. In particular, the extent to which the volunteers recalled
training material and their attitudes toward delinquents seemed to be
important variables. Three dimensions assessing the impact of the inter-
vention process on the volunteers themselves were assessed: knowledge
acquisition and retention, volunteer satisfaction, and volunteer attitudes.

Knowledge acquisition and retention. A training test was created in

 

order to assess the training knowledge mastery levels of the volunteers
in the various conditions. The test included items based on the skills
taught during the training phases of the volunteer's project involvement.
There were four specific items related to the rationale behind the

creation of the project model, rationales behind the use of the behavioral

69
and advocacy intervention strategies, and specifics relating to the
triadic multiple strategy approach employed by the project. In addition,
filler items not relating directly to training material were also included
in the instrument (see Appendix L). The rational-empirical scale construc-
tion strategy was employed resulting in a training test scale of 14 items
with an internal consistency alpha of .74.

The knowledge retention measure was administered following the end of
volunteer training and again at the end of the volunteer's intervention
period. In order to eliminate the volunteer's fear that he/she was being
tested per se, the instrument was administered with the bulk of other
measures that volunteers were required to complete and the measure was
simply entitled "Intervention Opinions."

Volunteer training satisfaction. Since enthusiasm has been charac-

 

terized as a critical tendency frequently displayed by successful nonpro-
fessional volunteers (Durlak, 1971), scales were designed to directly
assess the satisfaction of volunteers participating in this intervention
project. These scales were but several components of an extensive project
evaluation questionnaire (Mitchell, 1980) completed by the volunteers at
the end of training and at the end of intervention.

Through the use of principal components/varimax rotation procedures
(Tatsuoka, 1973), using Kaiser's criteria (Kaiser & Caffry, 1965), sub-
scales were extraCted from the overall project evaluation questionnaire.
One subscale was included in the current research. This scale, the evalu-
ation of a didactic training, included four items evaluating the specific
training and intervention model. The project evaluation questionnaire

developed by Mitchell (1980) is included in Appendix M.

7O

Volunteer attitude. Attitude change as a function of nonprofessionals'

 

involvement in various volunteer projects has previously been noted
(Rappaport, Chinsky, & Cowen, 1971; Kantrowitz, 1979). Therefore, the
differential impact on the volunteers of their experience in the two inter-
vention conditions seemed a critical area to be assessed. Two scales
included in a delinquency orientation questionnaire developed by Lawrence
(1979) were included in the analysis (see Appendix N). The two scales,
seen as potentially lying at opposite ends of a punitive-nonintervention
continuum, are correlated -.19 (p .<.05). The questionnaire itself was
administered to the volunteers at the post intervention point.

(1) Individual-punitive. The individual-punitive scale of the delin-

 

quency orientation measure was designed to assess the extent to which the
volunteer felt punishment was the desirable course of action when dealing
with juvenile delinquents. The items included in this scale are identified
in Appendix N. The internal consistency analysis resulted in a scale alpha
of .79.

(2) Radical—nonintervention. The conceptualization of the radical-

 

nonintervention scale grew out of the labeling literature. It was

designed to assess the extent to which the volunteer felt that responses
to delinquent activity should include diversion strategies and a general
systems avoidance strategy. The items in this scale are also identified

in Appendix N. The scale alpha was .72.

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

In this section, the results of the analyses will be organized
according to the outline of the research issues raised at the conclusion
of the first chapter (pgs. 27-29). First, the analysis of the youth out-
come data relating to delinquent behavior (police and court archival
records) and school performance will be described. Second, the results
from the self-report delinquency questionnaire will be expounded. Third,
the impact of systemic labeling upon the youth will be noted. Fourth, the
intervention process measures monitoring the nonprofessional volunteers'
actual intervention activities will be outlined. And fifth, the data
assessing the impact of the intervention process on the nonprofessional
volunteers will be detailed. The groups did not differ significantly on
any pre-intervention measures.

Given the large number of variables directly assessed in this study,
the data clearly demands multivariate analysis. However, due to the size
and scope of this research, the small sample size precluded any grand
multivariate analysis. Wherever possible, logical clusters of variables
were analyzed initially in a multivariate fashion. These results are
presented first in the appropriate sections and are followed by the pre-
sentation of repeated measures univariate analyses.

The police, court and school archival data were analyzed using exper-
imental condition and time as independent variables. During the analysis

71

72
of the remaining variables, an additional independent variable was created.
This additional variable should be seen as a simple dichotomization of
successful cases versus failures. Cases were defined as failures if the
youth had a contact with the police or a petition filed with the court
during the intervention interval. Youth that did not have any contact with
the official juvenile justice system during the intervention phase were
considered successes. The inclusion of this dichotomous variable as an
independent variable in an analysis of variance paradigm allowed for the
examination of the relationship between various interview measures and the
outcome of the case directly. In order to simplify data presentation,
this dichotomous success/failure variable was included in tables only
when the results were significant.

As noted earlier, several multivariate analyses will be included in
the presentation of results. However, the bulk of the discussion will
focus on the univariate analyses. In an attempt to tease out evidence
supporting any relationship found in the data, Scheffé planned comparisons
were performed (Scheffé, l959). Due to the potentially correlated nature
of the dependent measures and resultant inflation of alpha levels, single
findings should be interpreted with caution. Wherever possible, conver-
gence with other findings and sources of information will be noted in an
attempt to support meaningful conclusions.

Pre data was gathered on nearly every outcome measure (see measures).
The random assignment procedure appears to have been effective. Scheffé
comparisons failed to reveal any pre-intervention condition differences.

Youth Outcome Measures

 

The primary question with which the current research concerned itself

was the relative efficacy of the two experimental conditions (diversion

73
and court) and the court treatment as usual control in terms of tradi-
tional archival and self-report outcome measures.

Archival Data

 

Given the anticipated interdependencies of the court data (number of
petitions, average seriousness of petitioned offenses, and most serious
disposition) and the police data (number of offenses, average seriousness,
and most serious disposition), the correlations between these various out-
come meaSures were computed. Table 6 contains the correlation matrix for
these six variables summed over the pre and summed over the post data
collection intervals. The average intervariable correlation for the
three court measures was .74 while the average intervariable correlation
for the three police variables was .84. In a general sense, the inter-
variable correlations were quite high within the same time frame, while
that relationship dropped substantially as one attempts to predict across
time.

Police data. A multivariate analysis of variance of the three police

 

variables (number of offenses, average seriousness and most serious dispo-
sition) yielded a significant main effect for time (F = 3.76, p <.Ol) and
a significant condition by time interaction (F = 2.07, p < .05). This
data was further broken down through univariate analyses of variance.

The univariate analysis of variance for the police contacts variable
as adjusted for time at risk yielded a significant main effect for time
and a significant condition by time interaction (see Table 7). Scheffé
comparisons demonstrated a significant drop across time on police contacts
in the diversion condition (times l-4 vs. times 5-6: F = 3.32. P < -01)-
This drop in police contacts was not significant in the court and

control conditions.

74

.Fo. v a .mm. cmgu memmcm mcowumeLLou

.mo. v a .mw. 2mg» memmgm mcowumpmccoux

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oo._ mm. mm. _m. mm. «m. we. 00. «N. NF. wF. we. .amwo
co._ me. am. mm. ea. mm. we. mm. __. o_. my. .me “woe

oo._ mm. o_. qr. Re. mm. mm. mo. m_. _o. .cco

oo._ mm. mm. mm. Fe. mm. mm. mm. mm. .amwa
co.” mm. om. mm. mm. av. Pm. es. .cmm we;

oo._ mo. m_. o_. mm. mm. mm. .eco

oo._ mm. _N. N_. 00. __.- .amwo
oo._ em. _N. mo. mo.- .cmm “we;

oo._ N_. m_. co. .cco

oo._ mm. mm. .amwo
00., me. .Lam men

00., .cco

.amwo .me .cco .amwa .Lam .cco .Qmwo .emm .cco .amwo .me .cco

umoa mmmcm><

 

we; mmmcm><

mama muw_oa

«mcowumpmccougmucH mpmc moweoa ncm pcsou Fm>wcug<

 

 

pmom mmmcm><

m mpnmk

 

we; mmmcm><
sumo ucsou

93ll0d

qunog

Diversion
Court

Controls

m
Condition (C)
Subjects (R)
Time (T)

C x T

R x T

75

Table 7

Police Contacts

Adjusted for Time at Risk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l 2 3 4 5 6
.l8 .00 .20 l.50 .ll .00
.08 .00 .58 l.50 .09 .06
.06 .20 .33 .33 .34 .00

Analysis of Variance
g1: £15. _F_ Prob. 9:7;

2 l.34 l.44 .25
35 .93

5 3.02 3.98 .002 .l6
l0 l.7l 2.25 .0l7 05

I75 .76

76
The police data should be interpreted with caution, for two major

reasons. First, it should be noted in the police contacts variable (Table
7) that there was a significant pre difference at time period four

(time 4, diversion and court vs. control: F = l2.27, p < .0l). Recall
that youth were referred to the project for court petitioned offenses

that typically occurred at time 4. Generally, its the case that court
petitions are preceded by police contacts. However, during the current
research, eight of the l5 youth in the control condition did not have

any pre police offenses on record. Past research efforts have demon-
strated similar problems with police outcome data (Kantrowitz, l979;
Emshoff, I980; Mitchell, 1980). The fact that the unreliability of police
data seems to have been unevenly distributed within experimental condi-
tions makes this an even greater concern.

Second, cell means of zero were frequent in several of the outcome
variables. Cell means of zero necessitate zero variance within those
cells which violate analysis of variance assumptions. This is a fre-
quently occurring problem in criminal justice research. In order to
minimize the impact of this problem, pre-post analyses of variance were
conducted on any outcome data sets where this problem arose. By aggre-
gating the data in this pre-post manner, considerable power was lost
and it was frequently the case that the observed effects were not
replicated. However, the pre-post analyses were used to supplement the
original analyses and determine the reasonableness of the conclusions

drawn.

The analysis of variance of the pre-post police contacts variable as
adjusted for time at risk is included in Table 8. There were no signifi-

cant effects, however the results dfiishow similar patterns of cell means

5.9.95.9.
Condition (C)
Subjects (R)
Time (T)
C x T
R x T

77

Table 8

Pre-Post

Police Contacts Adjusted for Time at Risk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pre Post
Diversion l.89 .23
Court l.67 2.32
Control .93 .68
Analysis of Variance
9f. us f.
2 9.99 l.33
35 7.5l
l 2.63 4l
2 7.76 l.22
35 6.36

Prob.

.28

01
l\)

78
and nearly significant comparisons. In addition, at the post data point,
the court condition showed a significantly higher number of police
contacts than the diversion or control groups (post, court vs. diversion
and control: F = 3.78, p < .05). It appears as if the violation of the
analysis of variance assumptions did not seriously effect the analysis.
However, the increased power inherent in the initial analysis allowed
several observed effects to reach significant levels. These results
should be interpreted cautiously due to the unreliable nature of the
police data set.

The average seriousness for all police contacts for each youth were
calculated for each quarter interval. The univariate analysis of variance
for this police seriousness variable yielded a significant main effect
for time only (F = 9.5l, p < .01; see Table 9). As noted earlier, many
time effects on these outcome data were largely accounted for by the high
number of contacts at the time 4 interval immediately preceding referral
to the project. Scheffé comparisons on this variable demonstrated that
this time effect was present in all conditions.

The average police seriousness analysis also suffered from the inclu-
sion of cells with zero variance. The pre-post analysis of this data
set is included in Table l0. Once again there was an observed main effect
for time and it was apparent in all three conditions (pre vs. post,
diversion: F = 7.39, p < .Ol; court: F = 6.ll, p < .0l; control: F = 7.64,
p < .0l). In addition, by aggregating the data in this fashion, the
error term was modified such that at the post data interval the court
condition showed a more serious police contact mean than the diversion
and control condition (F = 5.48, p < .0l).

The analysis of variance of the most serious police disposition vari-

able yielded similar results; the main effect for time was significant

Diversion
Court

Controls

Ms.
Condition (C)
Subjects (R)
Time (T)

C x T

R x T

79

Table 9

Average Seriousness of
Police Contacts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l 2 3 4 5 6
.36 .00 .45 l.24 .l8 .00
.l7 .08 .83 l.50 .08 .46
.20 .37 .67 .73 .24 .00

Analysis of Variance
9: us _F_ Prob. 9i

2 .56 .56 .58
35 l.Dl

5 5.93 9.51 .0005 .l5
10 .70 l.l3 .34

l75 .62

 

 

 

m
Condition (C)
Subjects (R)
Time (T)

C x T

R x T

80

Table l0

Pre—Post

Average Seriousness of Police Contacts

Diversi
Court

Control

35

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pre Post
on 2.06 .36
2.58 l.l0
l.97 .49
Analysis of Variance
us. 5 2:92..
3.l4 .72 .50
4.38
45.32 2l.07 .0005
.09 .04
2.l5

.l6

8l
(see Table ll). Scheffe comparisons demonstrated significant drops in
the police disposition variable for both experimental conditions (diver-
sion and court), however, this drop was not significant in the control
condition fiimes'l-4 vs. times 5-6, diversion: F = 4.62, p < .0l; court:
F = 5.04, p < Ol).

Similar effects were noted in the pre-post analysis of the police
disposition variable (see Table l2). There were no condition differences
at the pre time period. However, the court group did show a higher dis-
position score at themetLpoint than the diversion and control groups
(post, court vs. diversion and control: F = 3.35, p < .05). The across
time effects were more pronounced in this analysis as all three condi-
tions showed a drop in the most serious disposition from pre to post
(pre vs. post, diversion: F = l2.49, p < .Dl; court: F = l3.20, p < .01;
control: F = 5.63, p < .05).

Court data. The multivariate analysis of variance on the first three

 

court dependent variables (petitions, average seriousness and most serious
disposition) yielded a significant time effect (F = 2.27, p < .05). The
univariate analysis for the court petitions variable as a function of time
at risk also yielded a significant time effect (see Table l3). Further
analysis of this time effect through Scheffe comparisons showed a decline
in the frequency of court petitions from times 3 and 4 to time 5 and 6

in the diversion condition (F = 5.99, p < .0l) and the control condition
(F = 6.28, p < .0l). There was little pre-post change apparent in the
court cbndition (F = .06, NS). In addition, the number of court petitions
filed on youth in the diversion condition was significantly less than the

number of court petitions filed on youth in the court condition during

Diversion
Court

Controls

m
Condition (C)
Subjects (R)
Time (T)

C x T

R x T

Most Serious Police Disposition

82

Tablell

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l 2 3 4 5 6
.l8 .00 .27 l.00 .09 .00
.l7 .08 .67 l.l7 .08 .33
.07 .27 .33 .47 .20 .00

Analysis of Variance
9: Mi _F_ Prob. fi

2 .82 1.93 .l6
35 .42

5 .28 l0.30 .0005 .l6
l0 .47 l.48 .l5

T75 .32

 

 

 

M
Condition (C)
Subjects (R)
Time (T)

C x T
R x T

83

Table l2

Pre-Post
Most Serious Police Disposition

 

 

 

 

Pre Post
Diversion l.45 .18
Court 2.08 .83
Control l.l3 .40

 

 

 

Analysis of Variance

9: us. 5 919.11. 23
2 3.70 l.8l .l8

35 2.05
l Zl.05 29.85 .0005 .l7
2 63 .90 42

35 .70

Diversion
Court

Controls

some
Condition (C)
Subjects (R)
Time (T)

C x T

R x T

84

Table l3

Court Petitions
Adjusted for Time at Risk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l 2 3 4 5 6
.00 .00 .30 l.00 .ll .00
.00 .08 .25 l.00 .09 .71
.07 .20 .73 .87 .43 .09

Analysis of Variance
9: ms 5 Prob. _w_2_

2 .52 l.07 .35
35 .48

5 4.2T 6.50 .0005 .ll
10 .59 .90 .53

T75 .65

85
project involvement (times 5-6, diversion vs. court: F = 5.69, p < .01).
The disparity between court petitions and police contacts as archival
outcome results will be a crucial factor in a more comprehensive discus-
sion of these findings.

The court variables also suffered from violations of the assumptions
of the analysis of variance. Once again there were some cells with zero
variance. The pre-post analysis of variance of the court petitions
variable adjusted for time at risk showed a similar pattern of results
but the specific Scheffe comparisons did not reach significant propor—
tions (see Table l4).

Both the average seriousness (see Table l5) and most serious dispo—
sition court variableS(see Table l6) yielded the anticipated main effects
for time. All three conditions showed a pre-post drop in the average
seriousness of court petitions filed (times l-4 vs. times 5-6, diversion:
F = 3.66, p < .0l; court: F = 4.68, p < .0l; control: F = 6.93, p < .0l).

These results were confirmed by the pre-post analysis of the average
court seriousness variable (see Table l7). All three conditions showed
a drop in the average seriousness of court petitions filed (pre vs. post,
diversion: F = 9.l3, p < .Ql; court: F = l0.93, p < .Ol; control: F =
l7.35, p < 0l).

However, Scheffe comparisons demonstrated that petitions filed on
youth in the diversion condition resulted in less serious dispositional
decisions during project involvement when compared to dispositional
decisions of petitions filed on youth in either the court or control con-

ditions (times 5-6, diversion vs. court and control: F = 5.43, p < 0l).

86

Table l4

Pre-Post

Court Petitions Adjusted for Time at Risk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pre Post

Diversion l.30 .23

Court l.33 l.6l

Control l.87 1.04

Analysis of Variance
M g: [13. .5
Condition (C) 2 3.80 .84
Subjects (R) 35 4.53

Time (T) l 5.7T l.22
C x T 2 3.l0 .66

R x T 35 4.69

Prob;

.44

.28
.52

Diversion
Court

Controls

m
Condition (C)
Subjects (R)
Time (T)

C x T

R x T

87

Table l5

Average Seriousness of
Court Petitions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l 2 3 4 5 6
.00 .00 .55 1.45 .09 .00
.00 .25 .75 l.67 .08 .27
.20 .33 l.l7 l.42 38 .07

Analysis of Variance
11 as E Prob. i

2 l.l6 2.67 .08 .0l
35 .44

5 l2.49 l4.96 .0005 .45
ID .31 .37 .96

l75 .83

Diversion
Court

Controls

some
Condition (C)
Subjects (R)
Time (T)

C x T

R x T

88

Tablel6

Most Serious Court Disposition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l 2 3 4 5 6
.00 .00 .36 l.45 .09 .00
.00 .08 .50 l.50 .33 .67
.07 .l3 l.20 l.67 .67 .27
Analysis of Variance
91 fig 5 Prob. of
2 2.3l 2.70 .08 .Ol
35 .86
5 l2.23 ll.32 .0005 .l9
10 .61 .56 .84
l75 l.08

_s_p_u:_c.e_
Condition (C)
Subjects (R)
Time (T)

C x T

R x T

89

Table l7

Pre-Post

Average Seriousness of Court Petitions

Pre Post
Diversion .05 .Ol
Court .07 .02
Control .08 .02 2
Analysis of Variance
g r18. .5 8:99.; 93.
2 .003 2.43 .l0
35 .00l
l .049 36.49 .00l .3l
2 .000 .l3 .88
35 .00l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

90

Again, these findings were confirmed by the pre-post analysis (see
Table l8). The diversion condition showed lower most serious disposi-
tion scores than in the court and control conditions (post, diversion
vs. court and control: F = 3.55, p < .05).

The additional court variable of incarceration also showed a
difference between the diversion condition and the court and control
conditions. Diversion youth were less likely to become incarcerated
during involvement (F = 4.46, p < .05; see Table I9). These findings
were not confirmed in the collapsed analyses.

School data. The multivariate analysis of variance of the school

 

data yielded no significant findings. The dependent variables of
numbers of the youth attending school, grade point average, percent of
days absent, and proportion of credits earned were also subjected to
univariate analyses of variance. The only significant finding in those
four univariate analyses was a significant time effect for number of
youth in school (see Table.20). This pre-post drop in number of youth
attending school was carried by the control condition (times l-4 vs.
times 5-6, control: F = l0.43, p < .0l). The decrease in youth attend-
ing school in the two experimental conditions was not significant.

There were no significant condition differences at any time period.

9l

Table l8

Pre—Post
Most Serious Court Disposition

 

 

 

 

 

Pre Post
Diversion l.82 .l8
Court 2.08 2.00
Control 3.07 l.87

 

 

Analysis of Variance

M 9:: us. E 819.9.
Condition (C) 2 l3.97 2.05 .l4
Subjects (R) 35 6.80
Time (T) l l8.0l 3.20 .08
C x T 2 3.78 .67 .52

R x T 35 5.63

Table l9

Months Incarcerated

 

 

 

l 2 3 4 5 6
Diversion .00 .00 .00 .0l .00 .00
Court .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .05
Controls .00 .00 .00 .00 .04 .2l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Analysis of Variance

some .12: us 5 m»...
Condition (C) 2 .04 .65 .53
Subjects (R) 35 .06

Time (T) 5 .06 l.52 .l9
C x T TO .03 .68 .74

R x T l75 .04

93

Table 20

Number of Youth Enrolled in School*

Diversion
Court

Controls

522:2:
Condition (C)
Subjects (R)
Time (T)

C x T

R x T

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l 2 3 4 5 6
1.00 1.09 1.09 1.18 1.18 1.09
1.08 1.17 1.17 1.25 1.25 1.25
1.00 1.00 1.08 1.08 1.23 1.23

*Scored = l — Enrolled
2 - Not Enrolled
Analysis of Variance
0: MS £_ Prob.
2 .20 .47 .63
33 .42
5 .19 3.33 .007
10 .03 .49 .89
165 .06

 

Summary of archival outcome data. The bulk of the data demonstrated

 

the consistent change across time that was in a large part due to the
unique nature of this data set. More specifically, all youth had contacts
with the system immediately prior to their referral to the project creating
an artificially high level of contact with the juvenile justice system at
this time period. Some across time changes did differ by condition. The
police variables tended to distinguish the experimental diversion and
court conditions from the control condition while the court variables dis—
tinguished the diversion condition from the court and control conditions.
Differences between the groups were minimal. Although the chi square
was not significant, two of the 11 youth in the diversion condition and
three of the 15 youth in the control condition recidivated during project
involvement while a full 6 of the 12 in the court condition had subsequent
contacts with the juvenile justice system during project involvement. In
this instance, recidivism referred to either a police or a court contact.
The primary condition differences that were present were the findings
that a smaller proportion of youth in the diversion condition had subse—
quent contacts with the juvenile court and of those that did, the youth in
the diversion condition were more likely to receive a less serious disposi-
tion and were less likely to become incarcerated as a result of that con-
tact. School differences were minimal. A summary of the archival outcome
data is included in Table 21.

Interview Based Measures

 

Recall that interviews were conducted with various sources at four

points in time commencing with the intake interview immediately following

Table 21
Summary of Archival Outcome Results*

Dependent Variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

 

 

 

 

Diversion ‘ + + + + + + +
Court 3 0 + + 0 + - - 0 4
Control 3 0 + 0 + + - - - 3

F.— ._ .—-

*Symbols represent change across time or condition comparisons on
each dependent variable.

+ Positive change
No change

Negative change

Police contacts adjusted for time at risk
Average seriousness of police contacts
Most serious police disposition

Court petitions adjusted for time at risk
Average seriousness of court petitions
Most serious court disposition
Incarceration

School enrollment

Number of dependent variables on which the experimental
condition scored at least as high a change score as the
other conditions

uoooxlowmpwm—t

96

the youth's referral to the project (see Table 2, p. 36). Three subsequent
waves of interviews were conducted at six week intervals with the fourth
being the eighteenth week or termination from the youth's formal involve-
ment in the project. The following sections will outline the results from
the data gathered during these interviews. Also recall that these tables
include the dichotomous success/failure independent variables where it
produced significant findings.

Self-reported delinquency. It has been argued that archival data is

 

merely a measure of juvenile justice system behavior (Williams a Gold,
1972) and self-reported estimates of delinquent behavior should be incor-
porated into the evaluation design of any delinquency prevention project
(Blakely, et al., 1980). The total scale derived from the self-reported
delinquency measure was analyzed in a three by four (condition by time)
analysis of variance. Recall that the data gathered at the first time
interval referred to the six week time interval immediately preceding
project referral. Results indicated an overall main effect for time

(see Table 22). Both experimental conditions demonstrated this signifi-
cant drop across time in self-reported illegal activity while this drop
was not significant in the control condition (time 1 vs. times 2-4,
diversion: F = 4.49, p ‘<.01; court: F = 4.27, p '<.01; control: F = .56,
NS). Self-report data does represent less penetration into the official
system. In that respect, it makes rational sense that these findings
more closely resemble the findings in the police data than the court data.

Labeling outcome. The label spread scales were designed to assess

 

the extent to which the youth felt that others were aware of his/her con-
tacts with the police, court, and project, as well as the importance of

these significant others to the youth. Klein, et al. (1978) felt that

Table 22

Self—Reported Delinquency*

 

 

 

1 2 3 4
Diversion 12.00 8.09 8.55 8.82
Court ” 11.42 9.46 7.54 7.42
Controls 8.93 10.29 6.00 7.21

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Number of offenses reported.

Analysis of Variance

999.299. 9.: 9.8. 9. 2.199... 93
Condition (C) 2 20.89 .14 .87
Subjects (R) 34 152.73
Time (1) 3 88.79 3.91 .01 .02
c x 1 6 19.31 .85 .53

R x T 102 22.69

98

these dimensions could be monitored and used to build a model that would
explain the labeling effects of the court system. Four subscales were
adapted from Klein's own work in an attempt to determine the fit of his
model with the differing impact of the experimental and control conditions
in the current research. The results of the analyses of these four sub-
scales are included in the following sections.

(1) Police reference. The analysis of variance of the scale assess-

 

ing the extent to which the youth felt significant others were aware of
his/her contact with the police that ultimately led to project involvement
yielded a significant main effect for time (see Table 23). This time effect
was virtually carried in its entirety by the pre-post change in the control
condition (time 1 vs. times 2-4, control: F = 2.81, p <.05; time 1 vs.

time 4: F = 5.65, p <.01). There were no direct condition or success/
failure effects.

(2) Court reference. Similar results were reached concerning the scale

 

assessing the extent to which the youth felt that significant others were
aware of the contact with the court system that ultimately led to project
referral (see Table 24). Again, there were no significant main effects
for condition or success/failure. The observed time effect was due pri—
marily to the pre—post change in the control condition as youth in that
condition felt that an increasing proportion of significant others were
aware of their court contact (time 1 vs. times 2-4, control: F = 5.61,

p <:.Ol).

(3) Project reference. The scale assessing the extent to which the

 

youth felt that significant others were aware of contacts with the project
also yielded a significant time effect (see Table 25). This significant

rise across time was present in all three conditions (time 1 vs. times 2-4,

99

Table 23

Youth's Rating of Labelers

Knowledge of Contact with Police*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l 2 3
Diversion 2.34 2.46 2.50 .45
Court 2.40 2.39 2.50 52
Controls 2.24 2.26 2.38 .46
*Number of sources aware of contact.
Analysis of Variance

Source 0: MS f Prob. g3
Condition (C) 2 .21 .55 .59
Subject (R) 34 .38
Time (T) 3 .21 3.50 .02 .02
C x T 6 .03 .42 .86
R x T 102 .06

 

Diversion

Court

Controls

999.199
Condition (C)
Subjects (R)
Time (T)

C x T

R x T

100

Table 24

Youth's Rating of Labelers
Knowledge of Court Contacts*

 

 

 

l 2 3 4
2.27 2.35 2.44 2.29
2.26 2.l6 2.37 2.34
2.15 2.29 2.30 2.44

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Number of sources aware of contact.

Analysis of Variance

9f. 99 5 21:99... 93
2 .04 .09 .91

34 .44
3 .l9 2.73 .05 .02
6 .09 1.28 .27

l02 .07

101

Table 25

Youth's Rating of Labelers
Knowledge of Project Involvement*

 

 

 

1 2 3 4
Diversion 2.01 2.14 2.23 2.16
Court 1.94 2.29 2.28 2.36
Control 1.84 2.14 2.10 2.17

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Number of sources aware of contact.

Analysis of Variance

 

5.9.9129. 2f. Iii E Prob. 95
Condition (C) 2 .32 .89 .42

Subjects (R) 34 .36

Time (T) 3 .74 15.94 .0005 .11
C x T 6 .05 ' 1.02 .41

R x T 102 .05

102

diversion: F = 4.58, p <.01; court: F = 24.64, p <.01; control: F = 18.48,
p < .01). Again, the main effects for condition and success/failure failed
to reach significant proportions.

(4) Label acceptance/rejection. The scale assessing the importance

 

of these labelers to the youth yielded a nearly significant time by success/
failure interaction (see Table 26). It was in fact the case that youth
involved in successful intervention experiences did not report any change

in the relative importance of significant others across time. However,

the youth who did recidivate during project involvement reported a signifi-
cant pre-post drop in the perceived importance ratings of these significant
others (time 1 vs. times 2-4, failures: F = 6.26, p < .01)

(5) Summary of labeling measures. Labeling theory has been used by

 

many to criticize the courts and explain their many failures (Becker, 1963;
Schur, 1975). The three conditions in the current research incorporated
differing degrees of formal ties to the juvenile court. The question of
whether labeling effects could be tied to outcome results in this research
was intriguing indeed. The measures included in this section directly
attempted to assess the occurrence of labeling effects according to the
model developed by Klein (Klein, et al., 1978).

In summarizing the labeling data, it was apparent that the control
group reported an increase across time in significant others' awareness
of the youth's contact with the police and court. Significant others were
increasingly aware of the youth's involvement in the project in all three
conditions. However, this was much more obvious in both the court and
control conditions. It is also interesting to note that the youth who
had additional contacts with the legal systemduring their project involve—

ment reported a clear decrease in the perceived importance of these

103

-Table 26

Label Acceptance/Rejection*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4
Success 2.34 2.68 2.66 2.40
Diversion
Failure 3.45 3.00 2.89 2.95
Success 2.54 2.64 2.81 2.91
Court '
Failure 2.46 2.03 1.98 1.32
Success 2.55 2.86 2.55 2.26
Controls
Failure 2.90 2.75 2.60 2.11
*The higher the score the more important the
person is to the youth.
Analysis of Variance
Source Df_ MS. .5 Prob. ‘gi
Condition (C) 2 1.84 .67 .52
Success (S) 1 .10 .04 .85
C x S 2 3.95 1.43 .25
Subjects 31 2.76
Time (T) 3 .76 2.07 ‘.11
C x T 6 .10 .28 .94
T x S 3 .88 2.40 .07 .01
C x T x S 6 .21 .58 .74

R g T 93 .37

104
significant other labelers. In short, the data did not fit with the model
put forth by Klein and his associates.

Process measures. As noted earlier, a major concern of any dissemina-

 

tion effort is the degree to which the adopting organizations implement
the model as it was designed in the original innovation (Emshoff, et al.,
1980). The juvenile court, existing to impact on the juvenile crime prob-
lem, is a logical potential user to consider in the dissemination of this
successful delinquency intervention process. However, given the diver-
sionary nature of the current model and the traditional focus of the
juvenile court, substantial variationsin the degree to which the model

was implemented were anticipated. At this point, several of the analyses
of the intervention process monitoring scales will be presented. Only
scales with significant findings were included in this presentation.

Due to the fact that controls were excluded from intervention process
data and the fact that it was gathered at only three points in time, too
few replications were available to perform a multivariate analysis on the
intervention process data. Scales were subjected to condition (diversion,
court) by time (2—4) repeated measures univariate analyses of variance
(see Table 2, p. 36). On several occasions, where it was meaningful and/
or significant, the success/failure variable was included as an additional
independent variable in the design.

(1) Amount of time. One of the more crucial variables concerned

 

with the equivalence of the two groups is the scale assessing the actual
amount 0f time the volunteers in each condition spent in intervention
related activities. The analysis of this scale is included in Table 27.

No significant effects were noted.

Diversion

Court

99999
Condition (C)
Subjects (R)
Time

C x T

R x T

Amount of Intervention Time

42

105

Table 27

 

 

2 3 4
4.11 3.77 3.82
3.63 3.89 4.08

 

 

 

 

 

Average item score (1-5)

Analysis of Variance

i_is_
.02
2.09
.10
.90
.47

I‘m

.01

.22
.93

Prob.

.93

.80
.16

106

(2) Volunteer contacts. The above evidence was confirmed by gathering

 

similar information from the volunteers‘ log book records of case con-
tacts. There were no significant condition effects due to the number of
volunteer-youth contacts during the intervention interval (see Table 28).

(3) Summary of general volunteer involvement. In order to make

 

inferences as to the extent to which outcome results were related to the
differential degree to which volunteers implemented the model, it's imper-
ative to rule out as many alternative explanations as possible. The actual
amount of time the volunteers spent in direct case related contact with

the youth is one such alternative explanation. Given that there were no
significant differences in the overall amount of intervention activity in
the two conditions, the issue then becomes to what extent did the volunteers
in the two conditions adhere to the specifics of the intervention model.

The remaining intervention scales focused on more specific components of

the intervention process as they occurred across time.

(4) Recreational activities. The analysis of variance of the scale

 

assessing volunteers' activities in the recreational domain is presented

in Table 29. Significant main effects were noted for both condition and
success/failure while the main effect for time was nearly significant.
Several interaction effects were also nearly significant. Through the use
of Scheffé comparisons, several important findings were discovered. Diver-
sion condition volunteers working on successful cases showed a slight but
nonsignificant drop in recreational activities from time 2 to time 3,
followed by a significant rise in recreational activities from time 3 to
time 4 (time 3 vs. time 4, diversion successes: F = 10.81, p < .01).
Diversion condition volunteers in the failure condition showed a signifi-

cant drop from time 2 to time 3 (time 2 vs. time 3, diversion failures:

107

Table 28

Volunteer/Youth Contacts

 

Contacts
Diversion ‘ 25.64
Court 26.42

 

 

 

Analysis of Variance
Source Of MS. F Prob. w

Condition 1 3.49 .03 .86 .00
Subjects 21 105.59

108

Table 29

Recreational Activities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 3 4
Success 3.37 2.96 3.78
Diversion
Failure 2.67 1.50 1.34
Success 3.67 3.70 4.00
Court
Failure 3.56 3.39 3.83
Average item score (1-5)
Analysis of Variance
Source Df_ M§_ £_ Prob.
Condition (C) 1 15.03 9.01 .01
Success/Failure (S) l 9.52 5.71 .05
C x S l 5.73 3.44 .08
Subjects (R) 19 1.67
Time (T) 2 .88 3.16 .05
C x T 2 .78 2.79 .07
T x S 2 .85 3.05 .06
C x T x S 2 .78 2.79 .07

R x T 38 .28

109
F = 4.89, p < .01) and then maintain this lower level at time 4 (see
Figure 2). At this time 4 period, the diversion successes were signifi-
cantly more involved in recreational activities than were volunteers in
the diversion failure cell (time 4, diversion successes vs. failures:
F = 5.83, p < .05). Volunteers in the court success or court failure
cells maintained a high level of recreational activity consistently across
all three time periods.

(5) Home involvement focused on changing the parent. Table 30 dis-

 

plays a summary of the analysis of variance and the group means for the
home involvement scale focused on changing the parent. The
time by success/failure interaction was significant. In general, volunteers
in successful cases increased their intervention focused on changing the
parent, while those in nonsuccessful cases decreased their amount of
intervention focused on changing the parent. More specifically, the court
condition successes increased the amount of their intervention activities
that were focused on changing the parent across time (time 2 vs. times 3-4,
court successes: F = 3.45, p < .01). On the other hand, the volunteers
in the diversion condition failure cell decreased the amount of their inter-
vention focused on changing the parent in the home setting (time 2 vs.
times 3-4, diversion failures: F = 3.51, p <1.05).

(6) Home involvement focused on changing the youth. In a similar
vein, a significant condition by time by success/failure interaction was
also noted in the home intervention scale focused on changing the youth
(see Table 31). In this instance, volunteers of successful cases increased
the amount of their intervention time focused on changing the youth in the
home setting across time (time 2 vs. times 3-4, successes: F = 4.92,

p ‘<.Ol). Diversion failure volunteers decreased the proportion of their

110

mmesp_mm “L300 0 ..... o
mommouozm pesou o ..... o
mmczpwmm cowmem>wo AVTiiiio
mommmoozm cowmem>wo 011111.
msz
m N

 

 

mmwuw>wpu< Pacowpmmeomm

N mgzmwm

 

co.—

oo.m

PJaAV

6

oo.m

34033 meal a

oo.¢

satltAL13V [euoiaeauoau u;

paisaAUI amil Io aunowv

111

Table 30

Home Intervention
Focused on Changing Parent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 3 4

Success 1.79 1.81 1.90
Diversion

Failure 2.39 1.69 1.50

Success 1.07 1.41 1.65
Court

Failure 2.15 2.02 1.90

Average item score (1-5)
Analysis of Variance
Source __D__f_ 1515 1: Prob. £3

Condition (C) 1 .28 .23 .64
Success/Failure (S) 1 1.46 1.23 .28
C x S l 1.22 1.02 .33
Subjects (R) 19 1.20
Time (T) 2 .07 .31 .74
C x T 2 .37 1.54 .23
T x S 2 .92 3.86 .05 .04
C x T x S 2 .02 .07 .93

R x T 38 .24

112

Table 31

Home Intervention
Focused on Changing Youth

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 3 4

Success 2.16 2.53 2.53
Diversion

Failure 2.75 1.70 1.30

Success 1.30 1.76 1.83
Court

Failure 2.16 2.20 2.37

Average item score (1-5)
Analysis of Variance
Source Of_ M§_ £_ Prob.

Condition (C) l .64 .39 .54
Success/Failure (S) l .05 .03 .87
C x S 1 3.85 2.31 .15
Subjects (R) 19 1.66
Time (T) 2 .03 .09 .92
C x T 2 .90 2.59 .09
T x S 2 1.43 4.10 .03
C x'T x S 2 .62 1.77 .18

R x T 38 .35

.04

113
time invested in trying to change the youth in the home setting (time 2 vs.
times 3-4, diversion failures: F = 5.95, p < .01).

(7) Summary of home interventions. In general, the two scales focused

 

on monitoring interventions in the home area suggested that volunteers in
successful cases increased intervention activities designed to change

both the youth and the parent in the home setting. At the same time, it
was apparent that failures decreased their home related interventions.

By looking at the effects by condition, it appeared as if the diversion
failures tended to give up on home change and focus on other areas. How-
ever, it should be recalled that there were no significant condition dif-
ferences. The amount of activity was not different from that in the court
condition.

(8) School intervention focused on changing the school. The school
intervention scale focused on changing the school setting per se, yielded
a significant condition by time interaction (see Table 32). In general,
the diversion condition volunteers decreased the amount of their interven-
tion focused on changing the school setting, while the court condition
volunteers increased the amount of their intervention focused on changing
the school setting. More specifically, the court volunteers increased
their intervention from times 2 and 3 to time 4 (times 2-3 vs. time 4,
court: F = 6,80, p 9:.01). This effect was carried out by the fact that
the court successes increased their intervention across time (times 2-3
vs. time 4, court successes: F = 6.73, p < .01). Diversion failures
decreased the amount of their intervention focused on changing the school
setting (time 2 vs. times 3-4, diversion failures: F = 4.35, p <=.05).

(9) School intervention focused on changing the youth. The school

intervention scale focused on changing the youth in the school setting

114

Table 32

School Intervention
Focused on Changing the School

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 3 4

Success 1.59 1.57 1.43
Diversion

Failure 1.73 1.09 1.00

Success 1.57 1.36 2.00
Court

Fai1ure 2.01 2.13 2.30

Average item score (1-5)
Analysis of Variance
Source 0: M_S_ _F_ Prob; i

Condition (C) l 3.11 1.62 .22
Success/Fai1ure (S) 1 .18 .10 .76
C x S 1 1.85 .96 .34
Subjects (R) 19 1.92
Time (T) 2 .15 .91 .41
C x T 2 .70 4.14 .02 .02
T x S 2 .13 .80 .46
C x T x S 2 .24 1.44 .25

R x T 38 .17

115

yielded a significant condition by success/failure interaction and a
nearly significant condition main effect (see TableIIB). These effects
were due to the finding that volunteers in the court condition's success
cell increased the amount of their intervention focused on changing the
youth in the school setting across time (time 2 vs. times 3-4, court
successes: F = 8.35, p < .01).

(10) Summary of school interventions. In summarizing the school inter-

 

vention scales one should recall the school outcome results. The outcome
results were minimal. There were no differences between the two experi-
mental conditions in school variables. There were also ininimal across time
changes. The control group reported a drop in enrollment that did not
occur in the experimental conditions.

Volunteers in the court success cell increased their school interven-
tion in general across time. Volunteers in the diversion condition who
were working with youth that had additional contacts with the legal system
decreased their school interventions focused on changing the school setting.
Perhaps the volunteers in this diversion failure cell were investing their
efforts in more critical areas due to the additional justice system con-
tact. A similar trend was noted in the home intervention scales. In any
case, the increased efforts on the part of the volunteers in the court
success cell did not relate to observed changes in the school outcome

variables.

 

(11) Legal system interventions. The analysis of variance of the
scale assessing intervention activities in the legal system is included
in Tableifll. Although no significant findings were noted in the analysis

of variance, the anticipated success/failure main effect nearly reached

Diversion

Court

Source

Condition (C)

Success
Fai1ure
Success

Fai1ure

Success/Fai1ure (S)

C x S
Subjects (R)
Time (T)

C x T

T x S

C x T x S

R x T

Focused on Changing the Youth

38

Table 33

116

School Intervention

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 3 4
2.56 2.81 2.83
1.54 1.65 1.50
1.98 2.63 2.99
3.36 2.35 3.30

Average item score (1-5)
Analysis of Variance
9.8. 5 9999-.
7.92 3.67 .07
.44 .20 .66
12.41 5.75 .03
2.16
.43 1.30 .29
.14 .42 .66
.50 1.54 .23
.16 .50 .61
.33

.13

117

Table 34

Intervention in the Legal System

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 3 4

Success 1.06 1.00 1.02
Diversion

Failure 1.09 1.14 1.05

Success 1.00 1.00 1.00
Court

Failure 1.30 1.72 1.67

Average item score (1-5)
Analysis of Variance
Source Of_ M§_ f_ Prob.

Condition (C) l .64 2.04 .17
Success/Fai1ure (S) 1 1.25 4.01 .06
C x S l .80 2.55 .13
Subject (R) 19 .31
Time (T) 2 .05 1.06 .36
C x T 2 .07 1.61 .21
T x S 2 .08 1.77 .18
C x T x S 2 .04 .98 .39

R x T 38 .04

.04

118.
significance (F = 4.01, p ‘<.O6). Again, Scheffe comparisons yielded
some interested findings. Success/failure comparisons were not signifi-
cant at time 2.

However, at time 3 volunteers in the failure cells were more involved
in intervention activities in the legal system than volunteers in the
successful cells (time 3, successes vs. failures: F = 5.66, p < .05).

The same was true at time 4 (time 4, successes vs. failures: F = 4.38,

p < .05). The data suggest that few youth came into contact with the legal
system during the first several weeks of the intervention interval resulting
in little differentiation between volunteers in successful versus failure
cells until time 3. This might explain the failure of the success/failure
effect to reach significant proportions.

Volunteers in the court condition increased their intervention in the
legal system from time 2 to times 3 and 4 (F = 8.00, p < .01). Volunteers
in the failure cells also increased their intervention focused on the legal
system from time 2 to times 3 and 4 (time 2 vs. times 3-4, failures: F =
24.08, p < .01). More specifically, the court failures increased their
interventions in the legal system across time (time 2 vs. times 3-4,
court failures: F = 15.60, p < .01). This substantial increase in the
court failure cell resulted in significant condition by success/failure
comparisons at times 3 and 4. Volunteers in the court condition failure
cell were much more likely to be involved in interventions in the legal
system than were volunteers in any of the other three cells (time 3,
court failures vs. court successes, diversion successes and diversion
failures: F = 10.27, p < .01; time 4, court failures vs. court successes,

diversion Successes and diversion failures: F = 9.48, p < .01).

119

(12) Summary of legal system interventions. It is apparent that
volunteers working with youth that have come into contact with the legal
system will necessarily become more involved in interventions in the
legal system. It is also apparent that this is to a greater extent true
in the court condition. Volunteers in this cell were more involved in
the legal system than in any of the other three cells during the latter
half of the intervention interval.

(13) Contracting interventions. Although no significant findings

 

were observed in the analysis of variance of the scale assessing con-
tracting interventions (see Table 35), the main effect for time and the
condition by time interaction were nearly significant and several compari-
sons were worthy of note. Volunteers in the court condition retained a
fairly stable pattern of contracting activities across time, while volun-
teers in the diversion condition increased their intervention focused

on contracting activities across time (time 2 vs. times 3-4, diversion:

F = 8.67, p < .01). More specifically, diversion volunteers increased
their contracting interventions substantially from time 2 to time 3

(time 2 vs. time 3, diversion: F = 9.47, p < .01) and dropped off this
level to time 4. Although there was not an overall condition difference
in the amount of contracting activities, these across time changes noted
differential adherence to the contracting model as called for in the

initial innovation (See Figure 3).

(l4) Advocacy interventions. No specific findings were observed in

 

the scale assessing advocacy interventions (see Table 36). However, it
was interesting to note that the court volunteers that were working with
youth that had additional contacts with the juvenile justice system
decreased their amount of advocacy related interventions across time

(time 2 vs. time 3, court failures: F = 3.57, p < .05).

120

Table 35

Contracting Intervention Activity

 

Diversion 1.37 2.42 2.06

 

Court 1.84 1.92 1.97

 

 

 

 

 

Average item score (1-5)

Analysis of Variance

999229 9:: 99. f. are. i
Condition (C) l .03 .01 .92
Subject (R) 21 3.09
Time (T) 2 1.84 2.87 .07 .02
C X T 2 1.35 2.11 .13

R x T 42 .64

121

r58 c-1110
cowmgo>wa 011111.

mzHH
m m

 

 

mmwpw>wuo< cowucm>cmch mcwuuegucoo

m mczmwu

 

N

39035 w311 BBPJBAV

SUOLlUBAJBlUI Buiqoeaauog

u; paisanul awll go aunowv

Table 36
Advocacy Intervention Activity

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 3 4
Success 1.96 2.22 2.21:
Diversion :
Failure 2.71 2.20 1.901
1
Success 1.43 1.41 1.45;
Failure 2.21 1.52 2.03‘
Average item score (1-5)
Analysis of Variance
Source .2: MS If
Condition (C) 1 3.52 1.90
Success/Fai1ure (S) l 1.25 .67
C x S 1 .39 .21
Subjects (R) 19 1.86
Time (T) 2 .26 .64
C x T 2 .19 .48
T x S 2 .65 1.63
C x T x S 2 .24 .59

R x T 38 .40

P_r_o_b_._
.19
.42
.65

.62
.21
.56

123

Summary of process measures. Although there were few Significant

 

main effects for condition, there were several significant interactions
and comparisons. The most appropriate place of departure would be to
restate the finding that there was an equivalent amount of intervention
time invested on the part of volunteers in both intervention conditions.
The specifics of how they implemented the intervention model did vary
considerably by condition. A summary table of the Significant inter-
vention process findings is included in Table 37. There were two major
discrepancies in the implementation patterns of the two groups. The
model called for an assessment phase followed by specific planning,
implementation of planned activities, monitoring, fade-out and termina-
tion. This pattern was evident in the recreational activities and the
contracting and school intervention scales in the diversion condition.
However, the patterns were not evident in the intervention activities
implemented by volunteers in the court condition.

Second, the failures in the diversion condition frequently reduced
interventions focused on the home and School settings across time and
increased activities such as contracting. As was mentioned earlier, this
could easily have been related to crisis oriented activities on the
volunteer's part. These crisis activities interfering with the ongoing
efforts coupled with the natural decrease in intervention activities as
the case moved toward termination could explain the drop in home and
school related interventions on the part of volunteers in the diversion
failures cell. 0n the other hand, failures in the court condition
increased activities in the home and school settings and were more
involved in the legal system yet they showed a decline in advocacy

activities on behalf of the youth.

124

Table 37

Summary of Intervention Results*
Dependent Variables

 

Diversion + O O — O + + 0

Court

KOOONQU'l-DWN—J

 

 

*Symbols represent change across time or condi-
tion comparisons on each dependent variable.

Positive change

No change

Negative change

Recreational activities

Home interventions focused on changing the youth
Home interventions focused on changing the parent(s)
School interventions focused on changing the school
School interventions focused on changing the youth
Legal system interventions

Contracting interventions

Advocacy interventions

Number of dependent variables on which the experimental condi-
tion scored at least as high a change score as the other
condition

125

Court workers typically increase information gathering efforts in
the home and school settings with youth that have recently come into
official contact with the system. It appears that the influence of the
court staff has manifested itself in the form of decreased volunteer
adherence to the model in the court condition and replaced it with

activities more related to traditional court services.

Impact on Nonprofessional Volunteers

 

The positive benefits frequently obtained through volunteers have
been noted (Gruver, 1971). Cowen, Zax and Laird (1966) have also noted
that the volunteers' attitudes toward the target population generally
improve while their attitude t0ward relevant institutions generally
deteriorate. These attitudes are also potentially related to the manner
in which the volunteers work with the population. The impact of the
differing intervention modalities upon the volunteers themselves could be
related to labeling effects, outcome results, etc. The following scales
directly assessed the impact of the experiences upon the volunteers across
several dimensions.

Course Related Measures

 

The two training related measures were evaluated in a pre-post
design. They assessed the amount of training material acquired by the
volunteers and the volunteers' general evaluations of this training
experience (see Table 2, p. 36).

Knowledge acquisition/retention measure. A major concern during this

 

study was the acquisition and retention of knowledge concerning specific
intervention skills. The volunteers took a training test at the end of

the training interval as well as at the end of project involvement.

126

The analysis of variance of this training test data is included in
Table 38. A significant main effect for time and a nearly significant condition
by time interaction were observed. The court condition volunteers pos-
sessed a greater command of the material immediately following training,
however, this difference was not quite significant. The significant
findings noted above were due primarily to the drop in retention in the
court condition (time 1 vs. time 4, court: F = 7.76, p < .01), while the
diversion condition volunteers retained virtually all of the knowledge base
they acquired during training (see Figure 4).

Volunteer training satisfaction. The results of the analysis of

 

variance of the scale assessing the volunteers' evaluation of the didac-
tic training (academic term 1) is included in Table 39. Data was colleCted
immediately following the first term's training (time 1) and at the post
intervention time period at the end of academic term 3 (time 4).

A strong yet nonsignificant condition by time interaction and a signifi-
cant condition effect were noted. The diversion condition volunteers rated
the didactic training experience higher at both time periods. However,
this difference was not significant at time 1. The diversion condition
volunteers reported an increase from time 1 to time 4 while the court
condition volunteers recorded a decrease from time 1 to time 4, resulting
in a significant condition difference at time 4 (time 4, diversion vs.
court: F = 9.68, p < .01). In other words, a significant condition dif-
ference was noted following the separation of the volunteers into the two
experimental intervention conditions.

Volunteer Attitude Measures

 

In order to assess the impact of this intervention experience on the

volunteers themselves, changes in their attitude toward delinquents and

Table 38

Volunteer Training Test

1 4

 

Diversion 10.36 10.27

 

Court 11.58 9.92

 

 

 

 

Number correct responses (14)

Analysis of Variance

Me 9:: 919 .F. 9:99.
Condition (C) l 2.14 .52 .48
Subjects (R) 21 4.08
Time (T) 1 9.59 4.50 .05
C x T 1 7.13 3.34 .08

21 2.13

R x T

'8

.05
.03

OU
OL

“.58 01110
cowmcm>wo Oiiiiio

 

 

 

cowucm>cmpcm mcwcwec»
“mom mzHH “mom
8 P
.. 00.0
.. oo.o~
f
0111 o .. oo.F_

 

ummh mcwcmoce compc:_o>

v mczmwu

33033 1581

999999
Condition (C)
Subjects (R)
Time (T)

C x T
R x T

Table 39

Evaluation of Didactic Training

 

Diversion , 3.68 4.09

 

Court 3.29 3.19

 

 

 

 

Average item score (1-5)

Analysis of Variance

9: 99 9 2:99.. 9.2.
1 4.80 9.96 .01 .20
21 .48
1 .23 .85 .37
1 .76 2.80 .11
21 .27

130
the juvenile justice system seemed critical. The two delinquency orien-
tation scales (Lawrence, 1979) included in this analysis attempted to
place the volunteer on a punitive-nonintervention continuum.

Individual punitive. Table 40 includes the analysis of the individual

 

punitive scale within the delinquency orientation measure. This data,
gathered at the post data point (time 4), showed a strong condition
effect suggesting that the court volunteers became much more punitively
oriented.

Radical nonintervention. In a Similar vein, Table 41 presents the

 

results of the radical nonintervention scale from the delinquency orien-
tation measure. Again, a condition difference was noted as the diversion
volunteers were much more likely to suggest a nonintervention strategy

in response to some hypothetical situation.

Summary of nonprofessional data. In sunnmry, it appears as if the

 

court condition volunteers lost a good deal of the information they
acquired during training. In addition, by the end of project involvement,
these volunteers also placed less emphasis on the importance of the train-
ing component than did diversion condition volunteers. The court volun-
teers were much more likely to suggest punitive measures of incarceration
as an appropriate response to delinquent activity and were less inclined
to suggest diversion or other nonintervention strategies as alternatives.
In short, their attitudes toward juvenile delinquents, in general, were
drastically different than volunteers' attitudes in the diversion condi-
tion.

Overview of Findings

 

A general summary of the overall findings would suggest that the

volunteers in both conditions mastered the requisite material prior to

131

Table 40

Delinqueny Orientation
Individual Punitive

 

Diversion 3.50

 

Court 4.15

 

 

 

Average item score (1-5)

Analysis of Variance
Source Df_ M§_ F Prob. w

Condition 1 2.42 29.10 .01 .55
Subjects 21 .08

132

Table 41

Delinquency Orientation
Radical Non-Intervention

 

Diversion 4.00

 

Court 3.59

 

 

 

Average item score (1-5)

Analysis of Variance
Source Of MS f_ Prob. w

Condition 1 .96 4.39 .05 .13
Subjects 21 .22

133

commencing intervention. However, those in the court condition did not
retain command of that material and became more punitively oriented
throughout the intervention interval. These changes were also related to
the degree to which the volunteers implemented the intervention model.
The anticipated temporal patterns of intervention activities were evi—
denced in the findings of several process monitoring scales in the
diversion condition. However, the strategies employed by volunteers in
the court supervised condition were clearly at variance with the inten-
tions of the model. Court volunteers maintained a high level of recrea-
tional activities, placed less emphasis on assessment strategies, did not
show a decrease in direct family involvement as the case moved toward
termination, and did not advocate on the youth's behalf following
recidivism.

These differing intervention activities were also related to
different outcome results. The police data demonstrated experimental
control effects. These findings were supported by similar results in the
self-report data set. The court data, on the other hand, differentiated
the diversion condition from the court and control conditions. In par-
ticular, the finding that a full 50% of the youth in the court condition
recidivated during project involvement stood out.

The following chapter will attempt to tie together the findings
related to each of the research questions. Implications and likely
future directions for the current line of diversion research and dissemi-

nation efforts will be discussed.

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

This study was designed as a preliminary step in the dissemination
of a successful social innovation. The history of this specific innova-
tion, the diversion of juvenile offenders from traditional justice system
involvement, has followed a rather ideal progression from the initial
innovation to its present state of existence in which the contemplation
of dissemination seems a logical next step. The initial innovation was
rigorously evaluated. It was systematically replicated at another site.
Attempts were made to tease out the salient factors involved in the
successful implementation of the innovation through controlled experi-
mental designs. At this point in the development of the overall project
time line, it makes little sense to ask the general question "Does
diversion work?“ Rather, conclusions can be drawn about the success of
this specific diversion model and its implementation with a specific popu-
lation of youth employing a specific sample of nonprofessional volunteers,
etc. The typical RD 8 0 model would then call for the dissemination of

the innovation to potential users.

Questions Posed by this Study
An issue frequently raised concerning diversion programs is the
degree of independence from the formal juvenile justice system required
to guarantee the successful implementation of the program. More specific-
ally, the question ”Can the model work if it is merely an alternative arm

134

135
of the formal system?" seemed a critical one to ask prior to beginning a
dissemination effort. As noted earlier, the formal juvenile court was
initiated as an alternative to the processing of juveniles in the adult
courts. The institution of the juvenile court exists primarily to deal
with adolescents in contact with the legal system. IS it essential that
we create an entirely new institution as an alternative to the original
alternative in order to impact upon the juvenile crime problem? Or,
would the simpler solution of introducing this diversion model into the
system itself have sufficient impact? It was to these general issues that
the current research addressed itself as a preliminary step in the dissemi-
nation of this innovation.

In order to assist in the synthesis of the data, the Specific research
questions will first be addressed independently. The data pertaining to
each question will be summarized, general conclusions will be drawn, and
possible explanations for the findings will be outlined.

A macro level summary will then tie the research findings together
and conclusions and implications will be drawn accordingly. Possible con-
founds and limitations of the current research will be outlined. And
finally, future directions for diversion programs in particular and social
change strategies in general will be outlined.

Archival Outcome Results

 

The typical research question in delinquency prevention efforts has
focused on the archival outcome results of the intervention strategy. In
the current research, the differential impact of the two experimental
intervention modalities (the original diversion condition and
the court supervised alternative) and the court treatment as usual control

on official court, police, and school records was determined (see Table

136
21, p. 95). There were no pre differences in any of these archival data
sets.

Analysis of the school data resulted in differential effects at the
general level of school enrollment. Youth in the control condition were
less likely to be enrolled in school during project involvement than
during the one year interval prior to project referral. Youth in the
two experimental conditions showed no change in enrollment patterns across
time. Project involvement in either experimental condition appears to
have contributed to maintaining the status quo. These findings replicate
those found in the Illinois project (Davidson, 1976) and replicated in
earlier Michigan State research (Kantrowitz, 1979). Project involvement

was found to enhance the stability of school performance.

Findings were similar in the police data set. That is, significant
effects tended to differentiate the experimental conditions from the
control group, though this difference was more apparent in the diversion
condition than in the control condition. In this instance, the serious-
ness of youths' contacts with the police did not differ by condition.

All three groups demonstrated a Significant decrease in the average seri-
ousness of police contacts from the one year interval prior to project
referral to the interval during project involvement. The diversion con-
dition demonstrated a clear drop in the frequency of police contacts. This
pre-post drop in official police contacts was not evident in the court and
control groups. However, a different pattern was observed in the dispo-
sitional decision data collected from the police departments. Youth in

the control condition failed to show any change in the seriousness of
dispositional decisions due to police contacts. Youth in the two experi—
mental conditions Showed a pre-post drop in the average seriousness of

police dispositional decisions.

137

The court data tended to Show a Slightly different pattern of
results. Once again, the average seriousness of court petitions filed
on youth did not change over time nor did it differ by condition. Youth
in the court condition were more likely to have additional petitions
filed against them during project involvement than were youth in the
diversion or control conditions. The remaining court variables clearly
distinguished the diversion condition from both the court and control
conditions. Youth in both the court condition and the control condition
were likely to receive more serious dispositional decisions and were more
likely to become incarcerated for offenses of the same seriousness than

were youth in the diversion condition.

Klein (1979) has suggested that programmatic attempts at diversion
may be producing unintended effects and that the original conceptual model
is rarely if ever implemented. The original conceptual model to which
Klein was referring is outright release of the juvenile with no further
action taken. Typically diversion programs have incorporated some form
of active intervention. Emshoff has Suggested that the crucial issue is
not whether the diversion program includes an active intervention
plan, the critical issue lies in the manner in which the evalua-
tion research is conducted (Emshoff, Jeppesen, Blakely, & Kushler, 1979).
The evaluation must include both confirmatory and exploratory components
in an attempt to determine the salient factors contributing to the success
of the specific diversion alternative being evaluated. Emshoff's point

lies in the fact that it makes less sense to ask the question "Does

138
diversion work?" than it does to ask "Does this specific program work,
with this specific population, in this Specific setting?“ and "Could it
be used by others in different settings?” The common ground that these
two researchers have identified is that diversion typically incorporated
removing the youth from further formal court processing.

More importantly, the distinction between typical diversion efforts
and the original conceptual model to which Klein alluded may be related
to the discrepancies noted between the police and court findings in the
current research. Klein would suggest that the intervention model employed
by volunteers in the diversion condition is in actuality two strategies
in one. Not only are the youth diverted from further system involvement
following initial inquiries, but they are also subjected to an intensive
intervention effort lasting several months. However, volunteers in the
court condition were in essence implementing only one of the two strate-
gies. Though the youth in the court condition were not formally handled
by the court in a technical sense, they were clearly not diverted.

Becker (1963), Schur (1971) and many others have suggested that con-
tact with the official juvenile justice system often leads to further
involvement merely due to that contact. Evidence has been sighted that
suggests that actual offense rates do not differ, only official contacts
with the system increase as a function of an initial penentration into the
system (Klein, 1979; Williams 3 Gold, 1972). The officical archival data
utilized by the current research effort represent differing degrees of
penetration into the juvenile justice system. At one exteme is the
incarceration variable. Recall, results on the court disposition and
incarceration variables distinguished both court related conditions

(court intervention and control) from the diversion condition. In other

139

words, the variables that assessed the greatest penetration into the
juvenile justice system clearly distinguished the court related condi-
tions (those without a clear diversion component) from the actual diver-
sion condition. In fact, this finding held up despite the fact that
there were no condition differences in the average seriousness of the
petitioned offenses.

The police data, on the other hand, represents less penetration into
the system than the court data. Again, the average seriousness of the
offenses were not different by condition, however, it was the case that
the: seriousness of the police dispositional decisions decreased
ir1 both intervention conditions but not in the control condition.

One could hypothesize that the two intervention conditions were suffi-
ciently potent to produce experimental/control effects on the police
variables. But the additional diversionary component in the diversion
condition was essential to minimize effects once penetration had reached
the court stage. This issue will be raised again as related findings are
discussed on other measures.

An alternative explanation of a more parsimonious nature is in
order. It could simply be the case that the court condition was in
actuality merely an exercise in implementing surveillance activities.

In fact, this explanation may more closely fit the data. The manpower
shortage in the court system was noted earlier. The difference between
the two court related conditions might be accounted for by the fact that
the court referee was able to gather a great deal more information about
each youth in the court condition through the volunteers. This hypothesis

was further supported by listening to audio-tapes of supervision sessions

140

in the court condition. There was case study evidence that the court
referee/supervisor did in fact use the volunteers to gather offense
related information about youth in the court condition. One serious
example was noted on the audio-tapes in which the volunteer became
aware of some illegal activity that the youth had been engaging in at
school. This volunteer was ultimately instrumental in having the youth
expelled from school.

Another recurring example arose when it was discovered that the
referee was having youth brought before him at the court for informal
sessions. These "sessions" were designed to set the youth straight and
provide some support for the volunteers in a negative threatening sense,
a sort of local "scared straight" phenomenon. However, it was the case
that only two of the six failures in the court condition did not have
police contacts corresponding to their additional court contacts during
project involvement.

Self-rgported Estimates of Delinguent Behavior

It has been noted that official archival court and police data sets
have often been criticized as outcome measures in delinquency research
evaluations (Gold, 1966; Farrington, 1973; Williams & Gold, 1972). These
archival measures do serve well as measures of youths' penetration into
the formal judicial system. However, they are dependent upon official
recognition of delinquent acts prior to the recording of the event.
Given the illegal nature of delinquent acts, they are typically not
readily observable. Although self-report instruments are subject to
their own peculiar criticisms, they are not effected by the necessity

of official observation and recording of the actual behavior.

141

Minimal conclusions can be drawn from the self-report instrument.
Findings were sparse. However,theycikicompliment the archival findings.
Both experimental conditions showed a pre—post design drop in self-
reported estimates of delinquent behavior. No condition differences
were observed and the archival success/failure difference failed to
reach statistical Significance (though the differences were in the appro-
priate direction).

The intervention model, as implemented by both conditions,showed some
positive impact on the police data while only the diversion condition
Showed effects on the court variables. It was suggested that the specific
"diversion from the court" component present only in the diversion condi-
tion resulted in these differential archival findings. The self-report
results more closely approximated the archival police findings than the
court findings. These findings further support the notion that a contin-
uum exists that might be labeled penetration into the system. At one
end of this continuum lies the commission of the offense, while the other
end is anchored by the court disposition. The self-report data would be
a step removed from official detection. This might explain the failure
of the success/failure effect to reach significant proportions. The fact
that these findings most closely resembled the results of the archival
police data lends support to the conclusions drawn in the previous
section. Both interventions were sufficiently potent to produce results
in the self-report data as well as the police data. This was not the
case in the control condition.

Labeling Effects

 

The assessment of the labeling effects centered around two basic

issues. The first of these, measured by the police, court, and project

142

reference Scales, was the extent to which the youth felt others were

aware of his/her contact with the official system. The second was the
extent to which the youth felt the awareness and opinion of significant
others was important to him or her. From these, two basic questions
emerged: (1) Did the proximity to the justice system differentially

effect the youth's perception of the extent of label Spread? (2) Was

this in any way related to the importance that the youth placed on signifi-
cant others in their lives?

As noted earlier, the instrument was designed to measure the extent
to which Klein's operationalization of labeling fit with the information
reported by youth participating in this research (Klein, et al., 1978).
Although the data did not support the anticipated findings, some inte-
resting results were obtained. Change in label spread scores referenced
to police or court contacts occurred only in the control group, while
youth in all three conditions reported an across time increase in label
Spread referenced to project involvement. The pre-post increase in label
spread may have been related to the volunteers actively working with many
members of the youth's family. Youth in the diversion and court condi-
tions may have defined the volunteers to others as family workers rather than
delinquency prevention volunteers. Control youth did not have this
recourse to explain their project involvement, and their label spread
scores increased across time. Perhaps the volunteers in the experimental
conditions served as a "buffer” which reduced the labeling effects on
the police and court reference scales.

According to Klein's model, the extent to which a youth accepts or
rejects labels being forced upon him is directly related to the youth's

perception of the importance of those Significant others. In short,

143

youth were more likely to see themselves as delinquents and recidivate,
if important others were labeling him/her as a potential delinquent.
Although the findings of this research did not support this position,
they did not provide substantial evidence to eliminate the model as a
plausible rival hypothesis. The model predicts that those youth who
reported a greater deal of police and court label spread (in this case
the control group) and felt that the opinions of significant others were
important, would be more likely to recidivate. It is not reasonable to
assume that these effects would be instantaneous or should necessarily
occur within an 18 week time Span. A better assessment of the validity
of the model can only occur after follow-up data has been collected.
If the model holds up, youth with the higher label acceptance scores
during project involvement Should demonstrate a greater tendency to
recidivate, or fail, than youth with lower scores. Unfortunately, follow-
up data was not available during the current research efforts.

A more classical interpretation of these findings might suggest that

youth who recidivate utilized a defense mechanism and lessened the impact

 

of the labels placed on them by belittling the importance of the opinion
of their significant others. This in turn would increase the probability
of their recidivating or failing.

In short, no clearcut conclusions can be drawn from these findings.
The current data did not support the model of labeling theory developed
by Klein. Follow-up data would be necessary to implement an adequate
test of that model.

Intervention Process Findings

 

These process interviews were designed to answer several questions.

How much did the volunteers intervene? In what specific areas? How

144

were the actual intervention activities related to the outcome of the
case? And, most importantly, how did the implementation of the model
differ by condition? Although the basic strategy of random assignment
to condition and the systematic manipulation of independent variables
with the control of confounding variables provides for straightforward
conclusions, the combination of exploratory and confirmatory paradigms
within the framework of a longitudinal perspective allows one to empha-
size the process monitoring of day-to-day events as they relate to the
intervention process without blind dependency on operational definitions
as descriptions of the intervention process per se. The current data
set lends great support to this position.

It was apparent that the influence of the juvenile court staff member,
serving in a supervisory role, had a substantial impact on the model
diversion project as it was implemented. In an overall sense, this was
evidenced in the trend recurring throughout most of the intervention
process scales. The reader is encouraged to refer to Table 37 (p. 124)
for a summary of the results discussed in this section. The data clearly
showed a reverse trend in the pattern of successes versus failures across
time. In the diversion condition, the successes typically showed the
greater amount of intervention activity (excluding the legal system
involvement scale). The reverse was true of the court condition.
Generally the court failures showed a greater amount of intervention
related activities.

These trends can be related more specifically to the intervention
model as it was intended to unfold. The general model called for an
initial assessment period of several weeks. During this period, the

volunteers spent the bulk of their time getting to know the youth,

145
significant others in the youth's life, and setting general goals to work
toward during the intervention period. During the first several weeks, it
was frequently the case that a good deal of time was spent in recreational
activities allowing for the interpersonal interaction required in the
assessment phase. Following this phase, more detailed intervention goals
were specified and actual intervention related activities increased sub—
stantially. During the last several weeks of the intervention period, the
volunteers gradually reduced their direct involvement in intervention
related activities and increasingly returned control of the situation back
to the youth and family. Throughout the intervention interval, the youth
and family were gradually encouraged to advocate on their own behalf and
negotiate their own behavioral contracts with less and less input from the
volunteer. During this period, intervention activities on the part of
the volunteer were expected to decrease somewhat and the recreational
activities to perhaps rise again.

The trends in the data showing the volunteers' recreational activities
with the youth dramatically displayed the disparity between the conditions
in terms of adherence to the intervention model. In general, the court
condition volunteers spent a greater proportion of time in recreational
activities than did the project condition volunteers (recall, that the
volunteers in the two conditions did not spend a differential amount of
time in case related activities). Those in the diversion success cell
showed a high level of recreational activity during the first third of
the intervention period (time 2) followed by a nearly significant drop
to time 3 and a significant rise again to time 4. This trend corres-
ponded well with the intention of the model. There was a good deal of

recreational activity occurring during the assessment interval followed

146

by a drop off during the most critical intervention weeks and another
rise in activity as the case moved toward termination. The diversion
failures again showed the drop in recreational activity from time 2

to time 3 but the drop continued on to termination (time 4). This was
perhaps due to the increased demands placed on these cases due to the
additional contact with the legal system inherent in the failures.

The court group, on the other hand, Showed a relatively stable pat-
tern across both the success and failure cells. Not only did the court
condition volunteers spend a greater proportion of time in recreational
activities, but they maintained this higher rate across time. The curves
in Figure 2 (p.11()) did not correspond with the trend theoretically
anticipated given the specific nature of the intervention model.

The diversion success group clearly followed the expected pattern of
moderate intervention activity during the first time interval, followed
by an increase in activity to time 3. Typically, the activity rate
decreased to time 4. These trends were evident in the school and
contracting scales (see Tables 33 and 35 and Figure 3, pgS. 116, 120, and
121) and corresponded well with the drop and subsequent rise in recrea-
tional related activities. The diversion failures followed a similar
pattern through time 3, however, they frequently continued the increase
in intervention related activity through time 4 and maintained a lower
level of recreational activities. Again, this is probably related to the
increased need to deal with the crisis situation related to the youth's
additional contact with the justice system. Volunteers probably found it
necessary to invest a good deal of time intervening in the appropriate

areas on the youth's behalf.

147

These trends were not typically apparent in the court condition. The
successes generally increased intervention activities over time right
through the termination interval when activities should have decreased
(see Table 35, p. 120). Failures showed the overall increased level of
activity (see Tables 33 and 35, pgs. 116 and 120). One hypothesis that
might explain the level of activity in the court failure cell lies in the
tendency for court staff to focus the bulk of their attention on cases
where there are in fact current problems. Perhaps this was due to the
oversized caseloads that the typical court worker must endure. In any
case, it was apparent that this increased activity level was related to the
differential supervision that existed in the court group. The court
failures tended to spend a little more time on their cases and were somewhat
more recreationally oriented than the diversion failures. They were
also more likely to be involved in specific intervention related activities
than were the court successes. However, it was interesting to note that
the court failures showed a significant drop across time in activities
related to advocacy efforts on the behalf of the youth. Perhaps volunteers
in the court failure cell were instructed to intervene using strategies
quite different than advocacy.

This finding was supported by the differential police and court
results. More specifically, the data supported the explanation that the
court condition was in many respects a surveillance exercise. It was
apparent that many of the court condition's failures were likely to have
been court initiated as the result of information gathered by the volun-
teers and shared with the court referee/supervisor. The referee in turn
called the youth in for an inquiry resulting in continued legal system

involvement in a formal sense. In his supervisory role, the referee

148
would necessarily have seen volunteers' advocacy efforts as counter-
productive and in conflict with his own efforts of handling the youth in
his role of court referee. Recall as mentioned earlier that information
was available from audio—tapes and notes of court condition supervisory
sessions that suggested some youth in the court success cell had been
called before the referee in an informal ”off the record” sense.

On the other hand, these findings tended to detract from the alterna~
tive explanation for the outcome results. The process data could not be
construed as supportive of the notion that both experimental conditions
incorporated a similar intervention strategy and the diversion component
of the model produced the salient differences between the conditions.
The process data clearly suggested that there was a strong confounding
variable that directly threatened the validity of such a conclusion.
More simply stated, the intervention conditions differed drastically
during implementation.

Impact on the Volunteers

 

The final general research question directly observed the impact of
the intervention experience upon the student volunteers themselves.
This impact was noted in terms of training material acquired and retained,
a general evaluation of the utility of the training material and the
impact on the volunteers' attitudes toward delinquents in general.

Although the straight knowledge acquisition or condition comparisons
were not significant, the conditions differed drastically in retention
(note the condition by time interaction in Figure 4, p. 128). The volun-
teers in the diversion condition retained virtually all the training
related knowledge acquired during the first term. The court condition

volunteers' retention level dropped significantly from the post training

149

period to the point of termination from project involvement- This infor-
mation converged with the adherence to the model differences noted in the
process measures. It is likely to have been related to the differential
supervision strategies employed within the two experimental conditions.
Supervisors in the diversion condition frequently employed role plays of
actual case Situations during supervision and generally referenced the
training manual on a regular basis. The diversion volunteers were
encouraged to develop intervention strategies as a result of their own_
assessment strategies. The court referee was more likely to bring the
official record file on each youth to class and develop intervention
strategies accordingly. As a result of these disparities in supervision,
it was not surprising to note the condition differences in training
knowledge retention.

Given the above conclusions, it was also not surprising to note the v//
difference in the volunteers' evaluations of the didactic training com-
ponent. At the end of project involvement (time 4) the court volunteers
were less likely to favorably rate the training component than volunteers
in the diversion condition. In fact, several of the volunteers in the
court condition went on to do undergraduate internships under the referee's
supervision at the juvenile court.

The differential impact of the supervision experience upon the volun-
teers was even more clearly delineated by the attitudinal measures. One
could conceive of a single dimension that taps attitudes toward juvenile
delinquents and forms a continuum ranging from at one extreme a very
negative-punitive bent and at the other extreme a much more liberal
radical nonintervention view. Following their training/intervention/

supervision experiences, volunteers in the two experimental conditions

150
clearly clustered at two divergent positions on such a continuwn. Diver-
sion volunteers were more likely to view delinquents as similar to every-
one else. They were more likely to recommend minimal entry into the
justice system and much less likely to consider any punitive intervention
strategies than volunteers in the court condition.

The impact of the overall experience on the volunteers themselves
seemed reasonable clear. Those in the diversion condition retained a
good deal of the training material, favorably viewed the training material
and model, intervened in a manner consistent with the philosophy espoused
by the model, viewed delinquents in a favorable light, and suggested pre-
ventive or nonintervention strategies. Volunteers in the court group
lost a great deal of the training knowledge, viewed the training and
intervention model less favorably, intervened in a manner less consistent
with the steps laid out in the original innovation, viewed delinquents in
a negative light and were likely to recommend punitive intervention
strategies.

Limitations of this Research

 

Certainly, final results and conclusions should be viewed with a
degree of caution. First, though the overall diversion project has
been systematically replicated many times, this specific piece of research
was intended to be primarily exploratory in nature. It was conceived of
and implemented as a first step in the process of disseminating a suc-
cessful social innovation. The importance of exploratory or "first step”
research efforts cannot be overemphasized. However, results should be
treated as guidelines to future research efforts rather than the ultimate

answers to the initial questions posed.

151

Second, the sample size of the current research was limited by the
resources available to the project and by the size of the community. In
addition, directly observing the interview data's relationship to the
archival outcome of the case resulted in cell sizes as smallam.two and three.
Many results nearly missed significant proportions. The findings might
have been considerably more conclusive with an increased sample size.

The general project strategy has been to increase the overall sample
size through replication. Clearly the implications from this work warrant
at least a systematic replication.

Third, the current research observed the impact of the intervention
condition as it occurred during the project intervention period. The
most important components of the current research were the intervention
process scales that specifically monitored the differential degrees to
which volunteers in the experimental conditions implemented the inter-
vention model. The research design adequately addressed this issue. How-
ever, the outcome effects of the intervention strategies could have longi-
tudinal effects that only become apparent at some point following the
actual intervention interval. Follow—up data will ultimately be collected
for two years following each youth's involvement in the project. These
results should add considerably to the conclusions drawn from the current
research.

Fourth, multivariate analyses were performed when a sufficient sample‘
size was available. However, the bulk of the data presentation concerned
the univariate analyses. During scaling, attempts were clearly made to
maximize the orthogonality of the measures. Though the scales did Show
discriminant properties, they were intercorrelated to some extent. Some

results may have capitalized on chance. However, constant efforts were

152

made to point out convergence from other sources and care was taken to
minimize the potential impact of this problem during the description of
the findings.

Fifth, there has been some controversy concerning the use of repeated
measures analyses of variance, particularly with its application to the
exploration of pre-post differences. The unique nature of the present
outcome data merely served to intensify the concern over this controversy.
Recall that the outcome data was analyzed in Six sequential time intervals,
four quarters pre and two quarters post. Inherent in this data set were
high means in the fourth quarter or the quarter immediately preceding
project involvement. Youth were referred to the project as a result of
contact with the juvenile justice system during this interval. Huck and
McLean (1975) have argued that the repeated measures analysis of variance
is too conservative with respect to interaction terms and too liberal with
respect to across time effects. However, alternatives such as analysis
of covariance or an analysis of variance based on change scores also rely
heavily on pre scores and display subsequent biases as well. Therefore,

analyses should be interpreted with these considerations in mind.

Sixth, the zero variance cells present in the outcome data constitute
a recurrent problem in criminal justice research efforts. The resultant
violations of the assumptions of the analysis of variance model forced
confirmation analyses of pre-post aggregate data sets. Though these
results typically confirmed the earlier findings despite the reduction
in power, these considerations should be kept in mind when interpreting

the findings.

153

Seventh, the trainer/supervisors were nested within condition and
may have contributed to condition differences by confounding the find-
ings. Past experience and research efforts have Shown the graduate
student staff members to be remarkably similar in terms of variables Such
as: volunteer ratings of supervisors, volunteer ratings of supervisors
"expert answers,” differential outcome results within conditions, etc.
The greater threat to validity posed by this limitation occurred as a
function of employing a single court referee as the only supervisor in

the court condition. Unfortunately, arrangements with the court did

not allow for a more extensive implementation of the design. The extent
to which the court referee was representative of the typical court referee
was not directly known. He had a typical degree and had been involved in
the system for many years as he worked his way up the promotion ladder.
However, any systematic replication would necessarily have to more

directly control for this confounding issue.

Implications and Conclusions

 

Major Research Issues Raised in this Study

 

Degree of implementation of the model. The major issue that stimu-

 

lated the current research concerned the feasibility of returning control
of a successful juvenile diversion program back to the court system from
which the youth were initially diverted. Therefore, a major research
question necessarily focused on the degree to which volunteer interven-
tionists in this condition actually implemented the model as it had been
intended to be implemented. In interpreting these findings, it is
crucial to recall the differences in the intervention conditions. The
volunteers were all trained by project staff in the same skills, using

the same materials. Both the youth and volunteers were randomly assigned

154

to intervention conditions and the two were randomly matched. Following
the training, half of the volunteers were supervised by court staff.
They all came from the same pool, intervened in the same community
settings, at the same time, etc. Yet, differential intervention activities
were consistently noted across time.

The groups of volunteers were not appreciably different at the
post-training pre-intervention point. They had acquired a similar know-
ledge base concerning the intervention model. Yet following intervention,

not only did they differentially retain information but the court

volunteers had redefined their opinions concerning both juvenile delin-
quents and the juvenile justice system.

Certainly innovations are adapted somewhat as they are implemented
in new settings with different formal operating structures. However, the
issue here is what components of the innovation did the court group adopt?
The volunteers did implement the intervention strategies to some extent.
What they failed to do was maintain an investment in the philosophy of
the diversion model. 'meicontinued to petition youth to the juvenile
court. They modified the assessment phase, failed to advocate on the
youth's behalf following additional contacts with the legal system, and
became more punitive in their interventions. In short, diversion was no
longer their business. Although they practiced some of the project inter-
vention strategies, second order change was not achieved (Seidman, 1976;
Rappaport, 1977). The change was for the most part superficial in nature

(first order change). There was little 0r no systemic impact apparent.

155

Outcome. Although the noted differences in the implementation of the
model were critical findings in this research, the significance of those
findings was directly tied to the differential impact in terms of the
ultimate outcome criteria. The chi-square was not significant, however,
18% of the diversion condition youth recidivated while a full 50% of the
court youth recidivated.

The disparity between the court and police findings has immense impli-
cations for diversion in general. Both intervention conditions produced
significant drops in the most serious disposition of these contacts.

This change was not apparent in the control group.

The court data, on the other hand, tended to distinguish the experi-
mental court condition from the diversion and control conditions. All
three conditions showed a drop in the average seriousness of petitions
filed. Yet those in the court condition did not show a drop in the fre-
quency of petitions filed or in the seriousness of the ultimate disposi-
tional decisions recorded in the diversion and control conditions. In
fact, the court group showed a higher rate of petitions filed during pro-
ject involvement than was the case in the other conditions. Both the
court and control groups were likely to receive more serious dispositional
decisions including incarceration than those in the diversion condition.
It appears that the degree of active system involvement in a juvenile
case was related to the degree to which dispositions of subsequent petitions
became punitive and restrictive regardless of the seriousness of the
petitioned offense. The self-report data also produced results that

supported these conclusions.

156

The larger issue of "To what organizations should a successful diver-
sion program be diffused?" cannot be answered here. However, even given
the limitations inherent in this design, it appears that one could justi-
fiably decide against implementing the innovation within the framework of
the juvenile justice system. In keeping with the overall project philosophy
of conducting concurrent designs of an exploratory and confirmatory nature,
the "black box" that is this particular diversion program must be pulled
apart even further in order to identify the organizations to which the

innovation should ultimately be disseminated.

Future Directions

 

Diversion

The longitudinal model of research employed by the project continues
to pick apart the "black box" that has been to date a successful diversion
program. The basic model has been successfully contrasted with various
control groups (Davidson, 1978) and pseudo-intervention conditions (Kantro-
witz, 1979). A family only intervention modality has been shown to be
effective in some domains and not others (Emshoff, 1980) and volunteers
from a local junior college have been successfully trained and have imple-
mented the model with similar results (Mitchell, 1980). Currently, ongoing
research efforts are focusing on the feasibility of recruiting and training
volunteers directly from the community and implementing the same procedures.
Diversion, as defined by the specifics of this innovation, remains a
viable intervention strategy in dealing with delinquent youth.

Social scientists operating successful innovations should feel obli-
gated to disseminate their innovations. However, this served to add

another "black box" to the overall picture. The issues of "How best to

157

bring about the dissemination efforts?” and ”To whom should the innovation
be diffused?" become all encompassing. Fairweather (1974) has suggested
the necessity of incorporating a group that is strongly committed to the
innovation at the adoption site. Case study information clearly points
out the difficulty in implementing such a process (Rappaport, Seidman, &
Davidson, 1979). Future research efforts that are currently in the plan-
ning stages will attempt to continue breaking down this new "black box.”

Social Change

 

The general question raised by this research addressed the issue of

the dissemination of innovative research projects to potential users.

More specifically, at issue was the degree to which the model was imple-
mented at the "adopting" site and its relationship to outcome results. In
theffinal analysis, implementation and outcome are inseparable. In

order to determine the critical ingredients of an intervention strategy,
one must know the related outcome results. In order to reproduce the out-
come results, one must know what specifics of the intervention model lead
to those results. In this research, the only modified variable was the
supervisor of the nonprofessional volunteers during the intervention
phase. Yet, different intervention strategies were employed and they
ultimately produced different results.

If we cannot produce similar results in a dissemination effort this
minimally removed from the original innovation, who are we kidding when we
suggest that dissemination efforts through traditional workshops all across
the country will have any hope whatsoever of incorporating the essential
ingredients of the innovation within the daily operating structure of

adopting organizations.

158

In summary, dissemination research has typically focused on the
strategies of persuading organizations to adopt the innovation. The fact
that this objective can be accomplished given the requisite amount of
effort has frequently been addressed in the literature (Fairweather, 1967;
Fairweather, Sanders, & Tornatzky, 1974). However, it is apparent that
this is an insufficient step in the overall model. Observers are in-
creasingly questioning the return on the federal investment in research
and development in the social sciences. The issue of the effectiveness of
this dissemination model, both in terms of the degree to which the inno-
vation is implemented by adopting organizations and in terms of outcome
data at the level of adopting organizations is just now beginning to
receive its due attention (Emshoff, et al., 1980). However, accompanying
this observation is the overwhelming awareness of the lack of rigorous
research on how to ensure the most efficient utilization of social inno-
vations. Increased attention must be paid to the manner in which adopting
organizations re-invent the innovation as it is adapted to the demands of
their organizational structure. Although the current research has taken
but a small step in the direction of pinpointing the extent of this
problem, it has clearly suggested the presence of a substantial problem
inherent in the research development and diffusion model of conducting

social science research efforts.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
DRAFT OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGREEMENT

APPENDIX A

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ADOLESCENT DIVERSION PROJECT
Draft of Administrative Agreement

This agreement is to specify the intention and future relationship of Dr. William
8. Davidson 11, Director of the Michigan State University Adolescent Diversion
Project and the Ingham County Probate Court, Juvenile Division. These two parties
are Jointly initiating the Adolescent Diversion Project for the purposes of: 1)
developing an intensive program of service to youthful offenders from the local
community to be used as an alternative to formal juvenile court adjudication and
disposition, and 2) conducting a careful and systematic evaluation of the effect-
iveness and impact of the Adolescent Diversion Project. In line with this inten-
tion the following agreement is specified:

The MSU Adolescent Project will:

1. Take responsibility for Project operation including accepting and processing
referred youth; recruiting, selecting, training, and supervising student
volunteers who will act as the primary change agents; administer relevant
course credit for the students.

2. Take responsibility for Project evaluation including the necessary data
collection, data management, analyses, and interpretation components.

3. Provide the Court with monthly reports of Program progress as well as main-
taining informal communication with the Court staff about Program operation
and outcome.

4. Take responsibility for all written communication to the granting agency

_ should federal research support be forthcoming.

5. Take the initiative for establishing an Advisory Board for the Project which
will include local youth, parents, Court personnel, and community leaders.

6. Insure the confidential and anonymous handling of all information collected
relevant to individual youth and Program Operation.

7. Take the initiative for Program continuation after federal support expires
contingent upon a positive outcome evaluation.

The Ingham County Juvenile Court will:

1. Refer approximately 100 and 75 youth to the project in the first and second
years of operation respectively. The referral of youth to the project will
take place following a preliminary inquiry or hearing and only in the case
of a youth who admits to the allegations in question.

2. Cooperate in the evaluation of the Project. This will involve several
specifics including the random assignment of youth to comparison approaches,
and allowing confidential and anonymous access to court records by the
Project research staff.

3. Participate in the ongoing operation of the Project by accepting formal
reports and informal communication with the staff.

4. Participate in the Advisory Board of the Project.

Assist the Project staff in working towards the Project's continuance contin-

  

 

 

 

l/r
- ' ""‘\ .
. . k0 L\.L (1):} RLKAé“- -_ ”_____
Dr. Williamfl S. Davidson/II Judge Rohéft L. Drake, Senior Judge
of P fists
I2 / w 722 ,1, ,/
\ //’..(; .//- [ [[229

 

Date 9
l//€i:) ‘dé/dééy/ 5:;7T' 4/// Warren Ritter, Direttor of Children's
1 [ngae’ JZ/ pz4-/¥’nd 1<; Services

Darrell Zwick, Intake Supervise?

1mm

APPENDIX B
RECRUITMENT LETTER

APPENDIX B

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY - East Lansing
Department of Psychology - Olds Hall

May 2, 1978

COURSE ANNOUNCEMENT

Dear Student:

we would like to inform you about a sequence of courses available to under-
graduates beginning in Fall 1978. The course involves a three-term.commitment.
The course will be offered under Psychology 370 (Fall, 1978), Psychology 400
(Winter, 1979), and Psychology 400 (Spring, 1979) for 4 credits each term. The
course will provide you the opportunity to work on a one-to-one basis with an
adolescent from the local community. These youths have been referred by the
juvenile court. The course will provide you with initial training in working
with adolescents and ongoing supervision of your actual involvement and progress.
The course will be a unique combination of information, intervention techniques,
and actual community experience. This course will be a valuable experience for
anyone considering graduate work and/or a career in the human service fields.
PLEASE NOTE: This course requires that you be enrolled the entire three terms.

Due to the typical overwhelming response to this course, we are limited in the
number of people we can process. Therefore, the first 175 people who call the
office number (355-1814) starting Monday, May 8, will be the only people

invited to the initial meeting. If you or any of your friends would be interested
in this project, please call 355-1814 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. no earlier
than May 8 for information concerning the first meeting.

Sincerely,

-
\

. "I v ' H: I \‘ o ‘ li'..
,7; , ; - , , X __ ‘ I, .
w [A ,. if '/‘=‘\_, :1 I. ,/ LW’C— . V5; «.14- 1

William 8. Davidson II, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Psychology .
Director, Adolescent Diversion Project

WSDzrjm

I60

APPENDIX C
STUDENT AGREEMENT

APPENDIX C
STUDENT AGREEMENT
MSU ADOLESCENT DIVERSION PROJECT
1978

I am.interested in being involved in the M50 Adolescent Diversion Project
and I hereby agree to participate in an assessment session which will take place
on Thursday, may 18, 1978 and a behavioral assessment session to be scheduled at
a later date.

If I am selected, this agreement signifies my intention to be involved in
the MBU Adolescent Diversion Project. It is my understanding that this project
involves a three-term commitment involving Psychology 370 for Fall 1978 and
Psychology 400 for Winter 1979 and Spring 1979 for figg£_hours credit each. My
work in this course will include participation in the initial training segment
(6-8 weeks) as well as intensive work with an individual adolescent to whom I an
assigned. The course will involve an average of 8-10 hours of involvement per
week.

If I am selected for the Diversion Project, there are several special con-
ditions of this course which I agree to abide with. First, I fully understand
that all the information concerning the youth with whom I will be working is to
be held in the strictest confidence. Second, I agree to participate in the
course and field work Fall term through the end of finals week,‘Winter term
beginning with the start of registration and through the end of finals week, and
Spring term beginning with the start of registration and through the end of
finals week. Third, grading for this course will be based on my demonstration
of responsibility in class and in field work, class attendance, and following
ethical standards. Fourth, I understand that I will be asked to complete further
assessment procedures during the course of the project.

If I am not selected for this Project, I agree to participate in the follow-
3? assessment (approximately one hour) at the end of Spring term, for which I
‘will be paid $12. Finally, I am aware that I will be notified of my acceptance
or nonracceptance into the course by August 31, 1978.

 

 

Professor William.S. Davidson II Student

 

Date

I61

APPENDIX D
REFERRAL SHEET

APPENDIX D

 

Referring Referee ADOLESCENT DIVERSION PROJECT

Referral Sheet Case #

 

 

 

Name Parent ‘ 5 Name

 

 

Address Address

 

 

Phone Number Phone Number

 

/ /

Birthday School - Grade

 

School Last Year - Grade

Educational Level of Father 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 l 2 3 4 G

Educational Level of Iiother 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 l 2 3 1o G

 

Occupation of Householder

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alternate Contact Alternate Contact
Address Address
Phone Phone

Marital Status:

who lives in the House:

interests:

When to Reach:

I62

APPENDIX E
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT

APPENDIX E
MSU ADOLESCENT DIVERSION PROJECT

Participation Agreement

In the Fall of 1976, Michigan State University and the Ingham County Probate Court
started a program.for youth in this community. The idea for the program is to
provide an alternative to the juvenile court for local youth. This project involves
several things. First, some of the youth in the program will be working with volun-
teers. The volunteers will be working with kids on a lot of different things depend-
ing on the kinds of changes which need to be made for particular kids. This might
involve working things out between you and your parents, working things out at school,
helping you find a job, things to do in your free time and so on. Second, not all
of the kids who decide to be in this program will be working with a volunteer. About
3/4 ‘ oftfluakids will be working with a volunteer between six and eight hours
per week on the kinds of things described above. The rest of the kids will be re-
turned to the intake worker. Whether or not you will be working with a volunteer
will be decided by lottery and in no way reflects what we think of you. When you
complete the program on / / and if you've had no further trouble with the
court, you will have no further court responsibility. If you would like to~ta1k to
a lawyer about this decision, Attorney Daniel Hankins will be willing to meet with
you without charge.

This form is for you to indicate your intention to participate in the program. It’s
important for you to know exactly what you're agreeing to.

1. We hereby indicate that we are participating in this project voluntarily and
understand that we have the right to withdraw if we see fit.

2. we understand that this project is being evaluated and that our input will be an
important part of that evaluation. we, therefore, agree to provide honest and
accurate information to the project staff.

3. we agree to be interviewed by the project staff on Educ occasions. Once within
two days, once in six weeks, once in twelve weeks, once in eighteen weeks, one and
CW0 years from now. We understand that this information as all information,
Will be kept confidential. we also understand that both
and his/her- parents will participate in each interview.
will be paid $5.00 for each interview. Finally, we understand that one of
'8 friends will also participate in the interview.

 

 

h. We agree to work with a volunteer should one be assigned. We understand that
this may involve six to sights hours per week. We understand that the volunteer
will be able to work around our schedule.

5. we hereby give permission for the project staff to examine and record the police
and court records for . It is also understood that
this information will be handled confidentially and anonymously. This permiss-
ion includes access to juvenile as well as adult records should they occur.

This permission applies to all records from 197__through l9Q_.

Youth Date

 

Parent Project Staff

Court Staff

1C9

APPENDIX F
RELEASE OF SCHOOL RECORDS

APPENDIX E
MSU ADOLESCENT PROJECT

Release of School Records

is participating in a research project through
the Department of Psychology at Michigan State University. As part of the
PIOJGCt and his/her parents are hereby
releasing school records to the project staff.

 

 

We hereby give permission for the Project staff to examine and record the school
grades, attendance records, number of credits earned, and suspension records for
for school years l9___, l9____, l9______, and l9____.
We understand that this information will be handled confidentially and anonymously.

 

 

 

 

 

Youth Date / /
Parent Project Staff
Birthday / /

 

 

 

School This Year - Grade

 

School Last Year - Grade

I64

APPENDIX G
DIVERSION TRAINING MANUAL

II.

III.

WEEK 1

Topics: Course Overview
Behavioral Conception of Human Behavior and Delinquency

Assigned Readings (To be mastered by class time this week)

Tharp, R\G., & wetzel, R.J. Behavior modification in the natural
‘environment. New York: Academic, 1969, Pp. 1-25, 44-60.

Course Expectations

The project in which you are to be intensively involved over this

”school year has two primary goals. First, to provide quality community-

based service to local youth in legal jeopardy with the juvenile justice
system. Second, is to examine the operation of this program and its
effectiveness.

There are a large number of peOple involved in the operation of
this project. First, undergraduate students will provide the critical
ingredient of providing quality service to the youth with which we work
and providing input to supervisory sessions. Second, graduate students
in psychology will be supervising the weekly classroom sessions for the
project. Third, Professor Bill Davidson will be consulting'with the
group supervisors and overseeing evaluation activities.

A critical component of the function of this project will be
relationships with the local juvenile justice system. While the
juvenile justice system.has many components, which we will outline
and discuss later, the goal of this project is to keep local youth out
of the formal court system. The local Ingham.County Juvenile Court
currently‘sees approximately 600 youthful offenders. This project will
accept referrals from this pool as an alternative to current court

processes.

I65

I66

ADOLESCENT PROJECT

IV.

Classroom Expectations

we will be meeting once a.week. During the first 8 weeks, these
meetings will last 28 hours. The remainder of the year we will meet
for 2 hours weekly. One critical component of this project is your
attendance at these weekly sessions. This is not because we are partic-
ularly interested in making sure that all good little undergraduate
students go to their classes. Rather, we have found that a very impor-
tant part of this project is the mutual discussion and input we can have
as a group towards our work with individual kids.

The weekly supervisory sessions will consist of several things
throughout the course of the year. During the first eight weeks the
majority of the time will be spent in training you in effective
methods of intervention with adolescents who have come into contact with
the legal system. We will also be discussing the cases you will be
beginning during the first eight weeks of the semester. During the first
eight weeks you will be assigned outside readings relevant to your work
in this project. The assignments will be available to you in the assigned
readings section of the Undergraduate Library under Psychology 370. The
weekly reading assignments are outlined on the attached pages. While
you may be used to classes in which the teaching strategy involves ranking
students as to how much they have learned in comparison to other students,
we will be taking a somewhat different approach in this course. It is
important that ggghflggg_of you have a strong background in.the approaches
to youth used in this project. Thus, the first eight weeks of this
course will be taught so that everyone will learn the essential information
relevant to their service to youth. You will be expected to have mastered
the material in the assigned readings by the time that you come to class.
When you get to class we will spend the first 5 to 10 minutes answering

any questions that you may have had about the assignment. You will then

I67
ADOLESCENT PROJECT

be asked to answer three short essay questions during the next 20
minutes. Following the essay questions you‘will again have time to ask
any questions of the supervisors relevant to the week's reading material.
Next, we will break into groups of three to four students and one
supervisor. Each student will be asked to answer two questions orally
in a discussion format. The supervisors will prepare six to eight
questions for discussion. Each student will be asked to answer two
questions at random. The format will be the following. First, each
student will be given three minutes to answer each question in sequence.
Then, following each answer, the group will be allowed to add any addi-
tional discussion relevant to that specific question for a two~minute
time period. This format will be followed for each of the six to eight
questions in sequence. If you answer both oral questions assigned to
you adequately and each of the three written questions at 85% or better
accuracy, you receive an A for that week's training. If you do not
answer any one or more of the questions, written or oral, accurately,
you*will be asked to write an additional question for each one you
missed on your own during the next three school days. If you answer
the make-up questions with 852 or better accuracy you will receive a B
for that week's training. If you still fail to meet criteria, you.ui11
be scheduled for an individual session with the supervisors for addi-
tional reading and discussion. The last half of each of the first eight
sessions will be devoted to speakers, role playing and supervision of
the early cases assigned to the program.

After the first eight sessions, the supervision class meetings will
be focused on group discussion of the individual cases with which you

will be working. These will become more detailed as the training pro-

168

ADOLESCENT PROJECT

greases and will include a number of components. First, you will be asked
to present a detailed oral description of your case each week to the
group. Second, you will be asked to bring to class each week the weekly
progress report. This is for the purpose of providing a written record
of the program’s activities and providing feedback information to the
agencies referring the youth to us. Third, you will be expected to add
input to the group discussion of individual cases and attend to sugges-
tions about your case from other students and the supervisors. Fourth,
the discussion of each person's case will consist of goal-oriented group
problem solving. In short, this method of group supervision consists
of outlining the goals or problem areas for each case, the alternative
solutions available, the potential costs and benefits of each alternative,
and the selection of a course of action. Fifth, you are each expected
to keep a weekly log of your activities. The specifics of how you are
to keep the log will be outlined on a sheet on the inside cover of the
log.

It is also important that you are clear as to the relative degrees
of responsibility that you have to each of the programis components.
You should view as your £igg£_responsibility the youth with whom you will
be working and his/her best interests. This responsibility includes your
interactions with him/her as well as your interactions with your friends
and others. The importance of confidentiality in your interactions with
your friends, relatives, etc., cannot be overemphasized. Your next
responsibility is to the project as a whole. It is also critical that you
are honest about your activities relevant to the youth with us. While
we definitely have positive expectations about your interactions with

the youth, do not hesitate to tell us of something that has gone on

169
ADOLESCENT PROJECT

which you think may have been a mistake. If we know about it we can
work it out together as a group. Your third responsibility is to your
fellow students. This includes your input to the group discussions
relevant to your own and other people's cases.

Up to this point we have discussed your involvement in the super-
vision sessions. However, your major involvement in this project, in
terms of time, will be working with or in behalf of a young person from
the local community. The specific content of your involvement with the
youth will be the focus of our next seven sessions. Several general
rules apply. First, you will spend six to eight hours per week providing
service to the youth to whom you are assigned. This will include direct
interaction with the youth, interaction with significant other people in
the life of the youth, preparing for future interactions, etc. A second
general rule is that the intention of this project is to provide indi-
vidualized services to each of the youths referred. In other words, we
will be applying the principles and techniques developed in the next
seven weeks to each youth according to the characteristics of the

individual and his/her situation.

Brief History of the Juvenile Justice System and the Notion of Diversion
Historically, the phenomena of juvenile delinquency in America was

created by the initiation of the juvenile court system.at the end of the
1800's. Prior to that time youthful offenders were handled with varying
degrees of formality by adult courts. The initial thrust for the
creation of the separate system for handling juveniles came from the
desire to protect children from mistreatment while still providing a
vehicle for safeguarding society from youthful wrong-doings. The failure

of refuge homes, used for wayward youth in the nineteenth century, had

170
ADOLESCENT PROJECT

resulted in children being severely treated and used as low cost manual
laborers. The court was to provide for the care of children in a way
which would ideally approximate that provided by "responsible" parents.
Other central issues in the formation of a separate juvenile court were
that the court per as would operate with a maximum amount of flexibility
in order to allow informal truthseeking procedures and would provide

a format amenable to individualized treatment. In short, it was sug-
gested that the juveniles exchange their constitutional right to a full-
fledged trail for the benevolent concern of the court. When necessary
the court was to assume the role of the interested parent; such proce-
dures were not thought to require multiple safeguards.

The court's sphere of influence was quickly expanded. The courts
had been created with all the fervor of a publicly supported social
movement. For example, Illinois Juvenile Courts, usually cited as
indicative of early juvenile court development, were created by the
1399 Juvenile Court ACt and given jurisdiction over any youth who vio-
lated the criminal code. Its operation was based on the work of unpaid
probation officers appointed by the court. By 1901, legislative change
expanded the legal definition of juvenile delinquency to include uniquely
juvenile offenses such as incorrigibility. In 1905 the Court's mandate
was further expanded. Initially it was responsible for the adjudication
and disposition of cases. Now it was also to direct supervision of
treatment services provided persuant to its orders. In 1907 legislation
further expanded the Court's arena by providing for professional prdbation
officers and court staff. After the fervor of the first decade of this
century, the juvenile courts in this country essentially conducted their

mission in a rather dormant fashion. Most other states had followed

171
ADOLESCENT PROJECT

Illinois in creating separate courts for juveniles by the twenties.
Separate Juvenile Bureaus in urban police departments were close behind.
Procedural informality, individualized treatment, and provision of
services approximating those of a natural home were held as basic Oper—
ating principles.

All continued relatively quietly until the middle sixties. The
juvenile justice system, like many other social institutions, became the
target of a variety of attacks, both from those within and outside its
ranks.

The first line of criticism attacked the juvenile court's justifi-
cation for acting with procedural informality while at the same time
holding the fate of individual youth in its hands. Characterized by
the Supreme Court decision in the case of Gault, in 1967, it was sug-
gested that the entire juvenile court movement had been a fiasco. In
its majority opinion the Supreme Court stated that regardless of the
good intentions of the juvenile justice system, the condition of being
a boy does not justify a kangaroo court. The failure of the juvenile
justice system to provide either sound, effective treatment or procedural
safeguards insuring constitutional safeguards left the youth with nothing.
These criticisms struck at the very heart of the rationale for the
juvenile justice system.

A second line of criticisms of the juvenile justice system.was
focused on.its mistreatment of youth by sending them to highly malignant
correctional institutions. This line of attack was quite similar to
the arguments which had provided the rationale for the creation of the
original juvenile courts. Recidivism rates were extremely high and the
poor conditions which existed in the juvenile institutions were almost

unbelievable.

VII.

172

ADOLESCENT PROJECT

One major response to these problems was to suggest that youth
should be diverted away from the system altogether. The general argument
was that the juvenile justice system has become so malignant that alter-
natives must be provided. This project is very much part of the effort
to divert juveniles from involvement with the formal justice system.

As can be seen from this description, we have in many ways come full
circle. The "new Diversion" of which this project is a part is very
similar to the initiation of the original court. Our task is to beat
the previous record.

Overview of Local Juvenile Justice System -- Graphic Discussion
(see chart following page)
Behavioral Conception of Human Behavior and Delinquency

In these next two weeks we will be talking about two relatively
distinct rationales with regard to human behavior and delinquency. One
is the behavioral approach and the other is the environmental resources
approach. First the behavioral perspectives will be discussed. After
examining the theory and traditions of each, a discussion of an effective
individualized case approach will follow.

Human Behavior

It should be pointed out from the very beginning that the be-
havioral conception of human behavior and problems was in many ways a
reaction to traditional medical model and intra~individual approaches.

In addition, the behavioral approaches have as their ancestry the
experimental-learning-theory based traditions within the field of
psychology.

The behavioral approach to human behavior, as a reaction to the
traditional medical model viewpoint, focused on several components of

several traditional conceptions including both medical and psychological

173

 

“IngbzysxeMIn..
ILLEGAL ‘\\N

 

 

 

BEHAVIOR \\\\:§
, . I NOT CAUGHT

 

 

 

.1.

3oz
APPREHBNSION/OBSERVATION
BY LAw ENFORCEMENT,
1, PARENTS, SCHOOL \+
\t' ‘ STREET
_ _ RELEASE
DISPOSITION DECISION
BY JUVENILE OFFICER.
l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 ‘ OFFICE
\/
RELEASE
‘ JUVENILE COURT
OTHER.AOENCIES 1 INTAKE \1
‘ ' \ I "
A wARN AND
ADOLESCENT 95”, J} ' RELEASE I
Dmmmwpmmm meTmmmmnm 1
/

 

 

.z E

1

PROBATION 1 _ INSTITUTION

' 'U',

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘s‘ '-
‘-|~

174
ADOLESCENT PROJECT

positions. In the first place, psychiatric explanations of human behavior
had often focused on internal psychic health or illness. Overt human
performances were said to be the product of internalized early experience.
Differential early experiences were said to result in various types of
individuals with varying degrees of healthy and pathological components.
Similarly, traditional psychological approaches to human behavior focused
on intra-individual characteristics, also resulting from early child-
hood experiences and genetic background, whiCh supposedly produced
Observed differences in human behavior and personality structure. The
basic model was that there are types of individuals who act and think
differentially; major emphasis was placed on internal states as predictive
of actual human actions. The traditional approadhea viewed human problems
as individual prOblems and the individual became the focus of therapeutic
and change strategies. The focus of change was the individual and great
emphasis was placed on professional therapists.

The behavioral approach made several attacks on traditional approaches.
First, it emphasized the importance of an individual's environment in
determining actions. Second, it suggested that the focus of change had
to be the environment of the individual rather than the individual per se.
Third, the target of change included multiple environmental components
rather than only the individual gig_one-to-one therapy, and therefore
people other than the professional therapist were viewed as critical to
the process of change. Fourth, it suggested that ongoing human behavior
was a function of the principles of learning theory rather than relatively
intractable intra-individual characteristics. Fifth, behavioral approaches
suggested that deviant was a function of societal labeling processes
rather than characteristic of individual deviant actions. In other words,
behavior was only termed deviant when observed by and defined as such by

‘important others or the individual himself/herself.

175
ADOLESCENT PROJECT

The behavioral approaCh suggests that human performances are a
function of several basic processes, drawn from laboratory experimentation.
First, human behavior can be initiated, maintained, and increased by four
processes. Obviously, one way people learn to do things is through instruc-
tion. They can be told specifically how and what to do. Another way is
for the person to observe another person or persons doing something. This
process is generally referred to as modeling and has been shown to be a
potent process in human behavior. People also learn to do things when
some action on their part leads to a positive consequence. This process
is referred to as positive reinforcement and involves the presentation
of a positive or desired event following the occurrence of some action.

A last process which has been shown to increase human performances is
negative reinforcement. Actions which lead to the cessation of a negative
consequence are more likely to be performed again. Consider the following
examples:

Instruction: You could ask the youth you are working with to meet
you someplace. You would tell him/her specifically where you would meet,
what you would be doing, what time you would meet, and how he/she could
get there.

Medeling: You might show the parents Of the youth you are working.
with a different way of interacting with him/her that you had found to
be successful. You would have the parent(s) watch you and the youth
engage in a positive conversation about what the youth had done that day.

Positive reinforcement: You might set up a situation where the youth
you are working with received an allowance based on how well he/she had
done in school each day.

‘yggative reinforcement: You might arrange an agreement between the
youth and his/her parents such that curfew hours (a negative event) would

be liberalized if the youth came in on time for some specified time period.

176
ADOLESCENT PROJECT

In addition to the principles for increasing and maintaining desired
actions, there are two principle methods for decreasing undesired actions.
Punishment involves the presentation of a negative event following some
action. In other words, as a result of doing something, an undesirable
event occurs. Another type of punishment involves the removal of a
positive event contingent upon a certain activity. In short, the person
loses something he/she desires as a result of some action. Here are two
examples:

Punishment (negative event): You might set up an agreement between
the youth and his/her parents such that if the youth returned home late,
he/she would have to do extra household chores.

Punishment (loss of positive event): Under a family contract a
youth might be required to pay back part of his/her allowance each time
he/she did not attend school. (see chart following page)

While this brief overview of a behavioral approach to human behavior
has summarized the basic processes governing the actions of people, most
of these principles are usually conceived of as Operating at the individual
level. In other words, one person, in control of the reinforcers, is viewed
as controlling or influencing the behavior of another individual. In the
situations in which you will be dealing in this program throughout the
year it is usually the case that interpersonal interactions define the
areas which need attention. In the interpersonal situation both parties
are seen as influencing each other's behavior in a reciprocal fashion
rather than one individual having absolute control. In other words,
interpersonal exchanges operate in a two~way fashion according to the
principles outlined above. In actuality both parents and kids, teachers
and kids, kids and their friends, kids and their employers, etc., have

considerable mutual influence over the actions of each other. within an

177

Clarifying the relationship between positive/negative events
and their presentation or removal.

 

 

 

 

PRESENT REMOVE
Positive Punishment I
Reinforcement '
Positive 1
Event
' ($. smiles. food. (T.V., smiles,
priveleges) stay up late)
Punishment II Negative .
Negative Reinforcement
Event
(pains, frowns, (threats, scoldings,
ridicule) restrictions)

 

 

 

 

also see Tharp and Wetzel p. 23.

178
ADOLESCENT PROJECT

operant interpersonal view of human behavior (applying learning theory
principles to the interpersonal situation) a number of assumptions are
made regarding interpersonal relations between youth and the significant
others in their life. Within this framework, the receipt of positive
interactions in the interpersonal situation is viewed as something which
has to be earned rather than an absolute right. People have to essentially
act nice towards others in order to expect positives in return and vice
versa. A second assumption is that effective interpersonal relationships
are governed according to the norm of reciprocity. In other words, the
old adage of ”If you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours“ turns out to be
true. A third assumption suggests that the value of an interpersonal
relationship is a function of the range, rate, and magnitude of positive

1
reinforcements involved in that relationship. PeOple essentially value
Others who treat them positively, on many occasions, and in many ways.
Lastly, it is suggested that rules can be utilized to create freedom in an
interpersonal relationship. When two individuals engaged in an inter-
personal relationship specify what they csn mutually expect from each other
it allows a certainty which will increase the chances of positive exchanges
and allow the exploration of additional positve alternative modes of

interaction.

Juvenile Delinquency

There have been many theories of juvenile delinquency put forth by
social scientists since the early part of this century. Most of them
have focused on either pathological or deviant individuals as the cause
of delinquency. Other theories have argued that delinquency was the
product of deprived or discriminatory social conditions. Neither of these
very prominent sets of approaches have produced either adequate explan-

ations of delinquency nor have they suggested helpful intervention approaches.

179
ADOLESCENT PROJECT

Within the framework of the operant interpersonal view of human‘
behavior, delinquency is seen to be a function of a set of ongoing inter-
actional processes. It is very important to note that the principles
which are said to govern the initiation and maintenance of delinquent
behavior are the same as those which are said to function in all human
actions. Delinquency i§;ng£_viewed as pathological or deviant in and of
itself. Rather, delinquency is socially defined. In fact, the mere
commission of an unlawful act is insufficient to identify a delinquent.
The act must be observed and formally labeled in order for a youth to
become known to the juvenile justice system.

It appears that delinquency is a function of several processes which
you.will be attempting to change with the youth you work with. It has
been observed that delinquents and their families are different from
nondelinquents on a number of dimensions. First, the families of delin-
quents disproportionately display (model) and attend to (reinforce)
delinquent actions. In other words, the youth have been exposed to and
reinforced for the commission of undesired actions by their families.
Second, the families of delinquents fail to attend to the prosocial
performance of the youth. Academic, social, and vocational accomplishments
of the youth are insufficiently attended to by his/her family. Third,
the interaction patterns in families of delinquents are generally governed
by aversive controls rather than positive relationships. The families you
will be seeing during this year will often disprOportionately use negative
tactics (e.g., threats, grounding, complaining, etc.) to attempt to
influence one another (get what they want). Fourth, the peer group of
delinquents will similarly disproportionately attend to and encourage
delinquent activities and insufficiently encourage prosocial accomplishments.

The peer groups of the youth you work with will provide social payoff

180
ADOLESCENT PROJECT

for "hell raising" and seldom be interested in the academic, vocational,

or recreational accomplishments of the youth. Fifth, the school personnel
which relate to the youth (primarily teachers) will also be overconcerned
with the negative actions of the youth and fail to pay consistent attention
to his/her accomplishments. Sixth, other significant individuals in the
life of the youth will interact with the youth according to the same
dysfunctional pattern. In short, there are many interpersonal forces in
the form of contingencies which have led the youth towards a path of
unlawful activity.

The implications of an operant interpersonal explanation of delin-
quency are multiple. It is obvious that interpersonal contingencies form
a major component in the development and maintenance of delinquent activity.
Thus, the focus of interventions must be the interpersonal relationships
within the life of the youth you.will be working with. The next eight weeks
will be spent in part in training you to modify the interpersonal relation-
ships which are important to the youth you are working with. The impor-
tance of assessing and intervening in each case on an individual basis
cannot be overemphasized. One major concern is that you are able to move
the important relationships in the youth's life towards the norm of
contingent reciprocity. Positive reciprocal interactions are a central
component in averting further difficulty. You will want to be working with
the youth agg_the significant others in his/her life to move their interb
action patterns towards a positive quid pro quo relationship. It must
also be stressed that your intervention will be with the youth and the
various significant individuals in his/her life. Many traditional
approaches, particularly those involving student volunteers such as your-

selves, have placed exclusive focus on the individual youth in isolation.

181
ADOLESCENT PROJECT

Your role in this project is much more akin to that of a negotiator
between the youth and important individuals than it is to the role of
the individual therapist or friend.

As can be seen from the explanation of delinquency reviewed above,
the important factor is that you are successful in inducing changes in
the interpersonal environment of the youth. It is probably next to
impossible to change the youth in isolation, and any changes which might
occur would not be likely to continue after you stopped seeing him/her
anyway, if that were your only focus. It is critical that you focus on
the natural interpersonal relationships in order to guarantee durable
and useful changes. And as will be seen in the next lesson, it is also
critical to focus on the youths needs and the related environmental

resources in order to maximize the relevence and longevity of change.

Overview of Training manual

Questions

Discussion of.Class Members Conceptions of Delinquents
Basic Principles from This Week's Material

A. Decline of the professional therapist as a viable intervention
approach.

B. Behavioral approach as an alternative to traditional conceptions
of human behavior. -

C. Negative consequences of the medical model approach to human
problems.

D. Principles of learning theory.

E. Principles of the operant interpersonal view of human behavior.
F. Interpersonal processes operative in the lives of youth.

G. Review of behavioral principles.

H. Explanation of delinquent behavior.

1. Implications for intervention with youth.“

J. The triadic model, its components, and'the role of mediator.

182
PSYCHOLOGY 370

WEEK 1

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

1. List four shortcomings of the medical model of human behavior.

2. What four processes lead to the initiation and maintenance of human
behaviors? Give examples.

3. Describe the triadic model and interrelationships.

183
PSYCHOLOGY 370

WEEK 1
ORAL QUESTIONS

How does the behavioral model provide an alternative to the medical model?
What are the implications for this project?

What are implications of behavioral models for use of nonprofessionals?
What is contingency management? Give examples and be specific.

What two processes lead to the decrease in human behavior? Give
specific examples.

Compare and contrast the behavioral and traditional views of delinquency
and its treatment.

What 6 interpersonal processes lead to delinquency?

ADOLESCENT PROJECT 184 WEEK 2

I. Topics: Environmental Resources Conception of Human Behavior and Delinquency
Rationale for Multi~Level Training for Work with the Youth

II. Assigned Readings (to be mastered by class time this week)

Ryan, W. Blamingrthe victim. New York: Vintage Press, 1971. Introduction
and Chapter I.

Levine, A. The rights of students. New York: Avon, 1973. Pp. 11-27,
149-159 a

The Court Structure of the State of Michigan (mimeo)

Davidson, W.S., Seidman, E., Rappaport, J., Berck, P., Rapp, N., Rhodes, W.,
& Herring, J. Diversion Programs for Juvenile Offenders.

III. Questions from Students (10 minutes)
IV. Written Questions (20 minutes)
V. Group Discussion Questions (30 minutes)
VI. Study Notes (supplement to readings)

Human Behavior

In order to put the approach of child advocacy and its related techniques into
perspective it is necessary to examine the recently popularized environmental re-
sources conception of human behavior. As with most theoretical and conceptual
developments in the fields of social science, the environmental resources concep-
tion of human behavior is very much a reaction to traditional conceptions and
strategies within academic and professional realms.

The environmental resources conception of human behavior was specifically a
reaction to two rather broad approaches within the social sciences. The first,
prominent within the field of psychology, is generally characterized as the
individual differences tradition. The basic approach of the individual differ-
ences school of thought is that human behavior is a function of multiple individ—
ual characteristics (intelligence, personality, family background, etc.). The
individual differences approach then actually crosses the fields of psychology,
social work, sociology, etc. Each discipline has traditions of seeking explana-
tions of human behavior by examining relatively stable individual characteristics
as explanations of variation in human behavior. The basic model was that there
are types of individuals who act and think differentially. The major emphasis
'was on tapping those internal states, types, traits, etc., as predictive of spe-
cific human actions. Without a doubt, the individual differences conception and
philosophy have been the most prominent in the fields of social science and in
society as a whole. In fact, the individual differences ideology is at the basis
of many of our "American" traditions. The individual differences approach to
human behavior has led to a myriad of approaches to changing undesirable individ-
uals, of various types, within a traditional therapeutic format. The basic strat-
egy involves inducing change in the individual characteristics of the individual
so that the undesired actions would disappear or be replaced by desired actions,

. self-esteem, ego strength, appropriate repertoires, etc. Most of the change
approaches that you are familiar with in the fields of psychology, psychiatry,
social work, counseling, education, are aimed at changing individual character-
istics as the apprOpriate route to therapeutic gain.

185

ADOLESCENT PROJECT

A second approach to human behavior, very prominent in the field of sociology
in the fifties, and at the base of the social action movements of the sixties, is
the social conflict theoretical position. The basic premise of the social conflict
approach is that human behavior is to a great extent a function of social structures.
In other words, formal and informal social structures and forces function to direct
antindividual and/or group towards behavior patterns considered to be normative or
legal. The basic position is that the opportunity structure of a society of
culture determines the behavior patterns of humans. This position suggested that
cultures are successful in convincing all of its members of the desirable goals
which are to be obtained. In our own culture such common goals include material
wealth, education, good jobs, etc. However, it was suggested that cultures make
legitimate and illegitimate means to attaining the commonly esteemed goals dif-
ferentially available to subgroups within each society. In other words, if
legitimate means towards the commonly held goals are not available to individuals
or groups they will seek and find illegitimate methods of attaining congruence with
society's ideals. The implications of this social structure/social conflict concep-
tion of human behavior for social and individual interventions were that the
opportunity structures of American Society had to be opened so that all groups had
equal access. In other words, deviance was seen to be a function of rather intrac-
table social conditions and structures. The social structure approach was also
often related to the individual differences ideology by suggesting that the indi-
vidual differences which had been observed (e.g., low intelligence, criminality,
poverty, poor work record) were a function of the unequal Opportunity structure.

The environmental resources conception of behavior actually reacted to the
individual differences and social conflict traditions in several ways. First, it
suggested that in fact there were individual and social structure differences among
and between social subgroups and individuals and that these were desirable. In
short, the importance of the individual was emphasized as not only existing but as
_desirable. The importance of each and every individual was paramount. The
environmental resources conception openly attacked the social and individual dif-
ferences approaches as being value laden. It was granted that differences existed,
but that many other differences existed which were not being focused on for polit-
ically convenient reasons. In other words, such characteristics as intelligence
or upper level social standing were defined according to the dominant social
culture's values and that in fact many other differences existed among any groups
one might select. The point is that those differences are in some sense revered
and provide insufficient reason for dismissing social responsibility for unfulfilled
human need.

 

A second line of attack focused on the fixed nature of either the individual
differences or social differences approaches. Both had suggested that relatively
stable characteristics, derived from cross-sectional approaches to research, were
predictive of human behavior. The environmental resources position argued that in
actuality human behavior was much more likely to be a function ofo mg ing;social

processes which could, by their very nature, not be captured by a static model.
' The alternative suggested was one of involvement in which the basic right of each
individual to society's resources was highlighted. It was suggested that the two
traditional schools of thought, with their focus on static individual and social
characteristics, had provided an excuse for not being involved in the social
process. This position was most elaborately delineated by the recent Joint
Commission on Mental Health in Children. The Commission stated that each individ-
ual in our society had a basic right to the resources, in all life domains, which.
the society had available. In short, the basic constitutional rights to life,
liberty, happiness, etc., were reasserted as a systematic position about how to deal
with human difficulty. These rights include both material and social or personal

d

ADOLESCENT PROJECT

resources. In other words, each individual has a right to have his/her needs ful-

filled through education, vocation, recreation, interpersonal relationships, up-
bringing, etc.

The implications of the environmental resources conception of human behavior
lead to the role of advocate for various individuals and social groups to insure
that the society and local community respond to the needs of all their members.

The advocacy approach is hardly new to our society. In fact, advocates have
existed in a number of naturally occurring and professional roles for some time.

In general, parents are construed as advocates for their children, lawyers for
their clients in adversary trials, professional associations for their constituents,
labor unions for the worker, etc. The environmental resources conception suggests
that the role of advocate needs to be more widely dispersed among various demo—
graphic, developmental, professional groups, etc. The arena becomes the ongoing
social processes which are intricately related to human actions. The advocate is
to insure that each individual, practically held as sacred, receives the full gamut
of resources to which he/she has a right and which are needed to fulfill individual
needs.

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

As with the general environmental resources conception of human behavior, the
specific application of this approach to juvenile delinquents was a reaction to
the inadequacy of traditional approaches to suggest positive strategies for dealing
'with youthful law violators. This reaction was a function of the traditional
schools of delinquency theory failing to account for the widespread incidence of
illegal behavior by youth among all social and demographic groups. The Child
Advocacy approach was also a reaction to the apparently malignant conditions
prevalent in the nation's juvenile justice system.and programs designed to
"rehabilitate" delinquent youth. Rather the environmental resources conception
suggested that delinquent youth were very much like all other youth, except that
the material and personal resources which could have been used to avert their
being labeled delinquent had not been executed.

The basic position of the environmental resources conception of delinquency
is this: (1) Illegal youthful behavior is widespread among all youth groups.
(2) A small subset of the youthful law violators are identified by police, parents,
and school officials as being official juvenile delinquents. (3) If sufficient
material and personal resources are not exerted, the youth will in fact become
officially labeled delinquent. (4) Entry into the formal juvenile justice system
in fact leads to further delinquency. In general, the position of the environmental
resources conception of juvenile delinquency is that the individual has unfulfilled
personal and material needs.’ The delinquent youth is to be respected and his/her
rights to the community's resources advocated. Again, the value of the individual
is exemplified.

It shOuld be noted that the reappearance of the importance of the rights of
juveniles to the community's resources was as much a function of events in the
legal and political spheres as it was theorizing in the social sciences. As was
mentioned in the first week's overview of the juvenile justice system, most
"people-helping” approaches has progressed in relative solitude between the time
of the early twentieth century and the early sixties. During the mid-sixties the
rights of those being served by various social programs were reasserted in the
streets and the landmark decisions of the united States Supreme Court. more

187
ADOLESCENT PROJECT

specifically, the decision in the Gault case indicated that juvenile offenders had
a right to the nation's legal resources in the defense of their cases. This basic
philosophy has been expanded to the other social service fields where the basic
rights of individuals to be involved in and have some control over their own
destinies is also being stressed. In the area of treatment of juvenile offenders
this individual rights/child advocacy approach has been specifically applied in
recent recommendations for the use of the advocacy approach as a general inter-
vention strategy. A large number of social groups have advocates to look out for
their best interests. In fact, success in American society, both material and
personal, can be viewed to be a function of one's ability to manipulate society's
resources for one's own benefit. Children have been lacking in advocacy groups
and hence probably gotten less than their fair share of the community's resources.
Those youth identified as delinquents have received even less of the resources to
which they have a right. The approach of child advocacy suggests that the scales
be balanced such that the law violator has an equal chance of gaining the resources
necessary to fulfill his/her personal and material needs. The methods of advocacy
are suggested as a solution. -

The implications of the environmental resources of the problem of delinquency
suggest three general components to the child advocacy approach. First, it is
suggested that the advocate take on the role of identifying, mobilizing, and
generating the necessary community resources to meet the needs of the individual
or group which is his/her constituent. The unmet needs of the individual are to
be identified by the advocate Eggether with the constituent individual or group.
In other words, at the very heart of the child advocacy approach is an individ-
ualized strategy rather than a set of carefully specified steps to follow in all
instances. In line with this position, the advocate is called on to use the
existing resources of the community available in the broad spectrum of individual
human needs. In general, a wide variety of resources exist which are little known
to or used by the population in question relevant to their personal and material
‘well-being. There is also the demand of the advocate to meet the individual needs
through the creation of community resources which may be nonexistent, but are
needed by the individual or individuals in question.

The second component of the recommendations for the role of child advocate
are that the advocate use a variety of strategies to mobilize or generate
community resources. Obviously, multiple tactics are available and none are
universally applicable or predictive of success. The advocate is called upon to
carefully consider the various strategies available, the idiosyncracies of the
individual and the situation and resources to be target, and make a decision about
a course of action likely to lead to the desired goals. In short, the child
advocacy approach relies a great deal on the individual resources of the advocate.

A third component of the child advocacy approach is that the goal of the
advocacy effort is to move the target individual towards a self-advocacy position.
Since the approach is based on the "sanctity" of the individual and his/her rights
to resources, it is critical that the individual be involved in the advocacy effort
to the extent that they will be able to assume their own advocacy at the close of
the intervention. Obviously, the intervention does not seek to place the person
in the position of needing a formal external advocacy system to maintain their
well-being. They need to be directly taught the methods and organisation of
individually generated advocacy effort and/or the option of organizing others to
join in the approach.

ADOLESCENT PROJECT

In these last two weeks we have discussed the fundamental concepts of the
behavioral and environmental resource approaches. Although the application of
these theories are somewhat distinct, we will be using a combination of these
two concepts in dealing with the participants in this program. It is crucial
that you understand the reasons for presenting both approaches within the same
training. This summary will provide the rationale for promoting the ”multiple
strategy" model and will show how the two models will fit together in the
remaining six weeks.

First, each method of mediating change for the youth has been selected for
its soundness in theory 59§_in practical application. In the Illinois Delin-
quency Project there was no major outcome difference between the group using
the behavioral techniques and the group employing the environmental resources
model. In other words both approaches were very effective.

Second, although both groups did better than those not receiving the new
strategies, it was clear that because of a special need or situation a partic—
ular youth might have done better if another strategy had been permitted. As
a result of the indepth assessment you will become knowledgeable about the
needs and special problems of your youth. Each of the youths assigned will of
course differ in many respects. Behavioral and environmental resources
initiatives are presented together so that in planning with the youth your
options for helping him/her are expanded.

Third, the use of a tailor-made programnwill help to eliminate the
tendency to make various assumptions about the several dimensions of the
youth's problems. It will become clear that while the methods are given there
are no rigid sequences or procedures in applying these models. Different
areas of the youth's lives may not only be quite separate but also problem
free. Obviously, how you use the methods you have been studying must be
largely determined by the individual's circumstances. Individualized Program-
'ming is a major advantage of this approach.

 

Fourth, the examination and use of options presented from these medels
of intervention will help to insure the stability of the changes you plan and
execute. When considered together a combination behavioral and environmental
resources approach covers more of what may be significantly affecting the
youth's current way of life. A.multilevel intervention provides flexibility
and mutual backup systems rather than total dependence on a single technique.
In the long run it's essential to consider the appropriatness as well as the '
interrelatedness of both approaches on an individual basis.

Fifth, having the opportunity to plan a strategy and pick your own methods
‘will allow you the freedom to be more than a technician following a routine.
You will have the freedom and flexibility to be innovative in implementing
your plans. Basically, this promotes using a number of sources in seeking
relevant information for the benefit of the youth. Such objectivity suggests
that your commitment is not to a particular method, but to the youth.

What does individualizing an approach in working with a youth entail?
And, in general, how does one devise practical plans and how do both models
fit together in doing so? These questions will be directly addressed in the
course work of the next several weeks. We will examine numerous examples of
prior and ongoing experiences as this term progresses. Class sessions are
designed to show how our multiple strategy model can be practically applied to
the several situations you will encounter.

189
ADOLESCENT PROJECT

There are three parts to the discussion of how these approaches work to-
gether to individualize each youth's program. Briefly, in depth assessment is
an essential starting point for both applied methods. The needs of the youth,
the available resources, and significant others must be recognized. As you
will learn next week, the information gathering procedures are quite similar
even though one approach will use the information on an interpersonal level
and the other on a systemic (community) level.

Second, once needs are assessed it will be necessary to plan the appro—
priate strategies for change, On both the interpersonal and the systemic
(community) levels, it is important to select the most influential targets
and most effective methods available.

Third, the mediator must continue to be involved in the monitoring‘gf
change throughout the program. Intervention and implementation are not enough.

Rather, one must continually evaluate the success in achieving goals, and be
sensitive to sources of feedback.

Finally, the multiple strategy approach provides for duribility of change.
In the process of terminating your formal involvement with the youth both
individual models stress the importance of relaying your training to the
youths themselves and significant others for their continued use. Thus, while
you initiate beneficial change it is important that the youth and the resources
environment can perpetuate or expand on the changes made.
VII. Basic Principles from.This week's Material
A. The position of the individual differences approach.
B. The position of the social conflict approach.
C. The criticisms of the environmental resources conception.
D. The goals of advocacy.
E. Steps in.blaming the victim.
F. Rationale for the victimrblaming approach.
G. Hiding the victim-blaming approach.
H. Rights under the First Amendment.
I. Rationale for the advocacy approach.
J. Environmental resources explanation of delinquency.
K. 'Components of the advocacy model.
L. Goals and aims of the Illinois project.
M. Type of participants (Illinois project)

N. Assessment and evaluation (Illinois project)

ADOLESCENT PROJECT

190

VII. Basic Principles Continued...

0.

Determinants of success (Illinois project)
Further research (Illinois project)
"Multiple strategy" rationale.

Integrating steps of the "multiple strategy" model.

General Structure of the Court System

19]
WEEK 2

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

1. What is the environmental resources explanation of delinquency?

2. What were the five main value positions that led to the initiation of
the Illinois project?

3. What are the characteristics of the victim-blaming approach? What are
the fatal flaws?

192
WEEK 2

ORAL QUESTIONS

What are the steps in blaming the victim?

How does the environmental resources conception of human behavior
offer an alternative to a victim blaming approach?

What is the rationale behind the advocacy approadh to youth and what
are the implications for this project? Why is self-advocacy an
important goal in the advocacy approach?

What was the cause and implications of Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent
School District Decision?

How is the victim.blaming approach to social problems carefully
disguised? Give an example.

Was the project successful? How was this determined?

193

WEEK 3
ADOLESCENT PROJECT

I. Topic: Assessment as a Prelude to Intervention
II. .Assigned Readings (To be mastered by class time this week.)

Davidson, W.S. Child advocacy in the justice system. Social Work,
May, 1976, Page 228 and first column of page 229 only.

Kanfer, F.H., and Saslow, G. Behavioral diagnosis. In C.M. Franks (Ed.)
Behavior therapy: Appraisal and status. New York: KcGrawbHill,
Excerpts on reserve

DeRici, W.J., and Butz, G. Writing Behavioral Contracts. Champaign:
Research Press, Pp. 9-25

National Information Center on Volunteers in Courts Some things to
think about in working with juveniles. MUmeo

The Answer Book. (Inquire at reference desk of library. Just skim
through it and note format, general content, etc.)

Patterson, Excerpt from Families, Chapter 7, Pp. 59-69. Mimeo
III. Questions from.Students (10 minutes)
IV. Written Questions (20 minutes)
V. Group Discussion Questions (30 minutes)

VI. Study Notes (supplement to readings)

Your initial introduction to a youth and his/her life situations will
actually involve several sequential steps. After a youth has been assigned to
this program, your supervisor will be matching you up with an individual
youth. You will be informed of the name, address, age, school, etc., of the
youth. It is critical that you make a contact with the youth as soon as you
are assigned. Your initial contact will generally consist of a phone call to
the youth to set up a mutually agreed upon time and place to get together.

It is important that you be very specific about time and place and that you
live up to the arrangements precisely. You should introduce yourself by name
and identify yourself as being from the "volunteer" project. Often a commonly
agreed upon activity will provide inducement for the first meeting. You will
spend the first week primarily getting to know the youmh and his/her situation.

Although these earliest meetings should be fairly relaxed, as you and the
youth become acquainted, you should use this opportunity to begin the very
important process of assessment. Exactly how you do this is critical. On the
one hand, while you.want to find out the maximum amount of information about
the problematic interpersonal interactions which the youth encounters and the
unmet resource needs the youth has, you do not want to be exclusively "problem'
oriented. These youth will likely have been "prOblemed" to death in the past
and may be turned off by such an approach. Instead, during the first week,
You.want to focus your early discussions on what the youth does and inquire
Specifically about each area discussed. In this manner, "problem" areas will
«emerge as one component of the youth's life and can be attended to as such.

194
ADOLESCENT PROJECT

The interpersonal atmosphere in which the early conversations are conducted
is very important. You should attempt to foster a feeling of genuine concern
toward the youth and a sincere interest in his situation. However, you should
avoid playing social worker or attempting to force an emotional bond where one
does not exist. At the same time, you must gather necessary information about
the youth and be constantly sensitive to possible information about inter~
personal relationships and/or unmet resource needs. Once again, however, this
must be done with sincerity and some tact. The last thing you want to do is
come on like the local cop or an investigative reporter.

To summarize, while your initial contacts with the youth should be as a
friend, as you would get to know any new acquaintance, it is essential that you
be at all times aware of the need to gather pertinent information about the
youth and his social and environmental situation.

Keeping in mind the multi-level intervention approach which this course
emphasizes, you must obtain enough information to permit a comprehensive
intervention plan to be developed. In order to allow yourself the flexibility
to utilize an appropriate combination of behavioral and environmental resource
(advocacy) strategies, the necessary background information about the youth and
his/her situation must be gathered. Only after you have made this comprehensive
assessment can an intervention plan, tailored to the needs and potentialities
of your youth, be developed and implemented.

In the actual assessment process, you should be simultaneously gathering
information that could be used for either behavioral or environmental resource
oriented interventions. However, for the purposes of this manual, it may be
most clear to separately discuss the assessment requirements of each method-
ological approach. Once the requirements of each method are clear to you, it
should be possible to encompass both methods when your actual assessment takes
place.

The Behavioral Approach

In using the behavioral approach, you.want to set the stage for yourself
to assume the role of mediator between the youth and various significant others
in his/her interpersonal network and to work.with them.toward a negotiated
interpersonal agreement. To be able to accomplish such a task, you must
obviously first gather the necessary information about the youth's interpersonal
network, such as: who are the important persons in the network; what are the
present contingencies; and particularly, what are the problemvareas in the
network. As soon as feasible in the relationship, possibly at the end of the
first week, you should identify with the youth the interpersonal contingencies
you would both like to work on. A CARDINAL RULE IS THAT YOU WANT TO SELECT
GOAL AREAS IN TERMS OF IMPROVEMENT RATHER THAN ONLY STOPPING OR REDUCING HASSLES.
Your role now becomes clearly that of a mediator, for the purpose of establish-
ing and monitoring interpersonal agreements.

At this point the assessment phase moves into a more advanced stage. Now
assessment will be intermixed‘with specific action steps. Once you have estab-
lished a friendship with the youth and identified areas in which you will be

195
ADOLESCENT PROJECT

working, the next step is to set up meetings between yourself and the important
people you have mutually identified. While the range of important persons who
might be identified is to always be based on the individual youth and the
situation as you see it, you will generally be most heavily involved with
parents, teachers, employers, etc. The purpose of the initial meeting with the
youth and each of the significant others identified is to establish what each
party would like to see improved in their mutual interaction. Specifically,
after setting up such meetings, and necessary introductions, your task is to
identify what each party would like changed in the most exact terms possible.
The best way to gain such information is to ask each party that question
directly, and then further question them in order to get their demands further
specified and translated into positive statements rather than negative. For
example, a common thing that teachers want is for the youth to do his/her school
work. Your response would be to find out exactly what the school work was in
terms of daily and weekly tasks. Another common request by parents is for the
youth to follow the family rules. Your response would be to ask exactly what
those rules were. Kids will often.want to get their parents off their backs.
When inquiring specifically as to what that was you might find out that the youth
wanted to be able to go out with his/her friends without a 30-minute lecture
about why he/she shouldn't. Your response here would be to find out exactly
what the youth would like the parents to do instead. The two general rules to
be remembered at this point are: (I) Do you know exactly what each party is
asking for so that all concerned would agree on whether the change had taken
place or not? (2) Can each request be stated in terms of a positive rather than
in terms of what each would like the other to stop doing?

After identifying the desired changes of each party you are ready to
negotiate an agreement. Some details about this process will be provided in the
coming weeks.

The Environmental Resources (Advocacy) Approach

In using this approach you want to set the stage for yourself to assume
the role of advocate for the youth and his/her situation in areas of personal or
collective need. In other words, you want to begin to identify the critical
interfaces between the youth and the social systems of the local community. As
components of this process you must be able to identify both the unmet needs of
the youth and the various community resources available to meet those needs.
This will involve gathering information from the youth and significant others
in his life, as well as familiarizing yourself with resource options potentially
available. As soon as possible, again perhaps at the end of the first week, you
should identify with the youth the areas of unmet need that you would both like
to work on. A cardinal rule in the“ advocacy approach is that YOU WANT TO
IDENTIFY TARGET AREAS OF UNMET NEED RATHER THAN ONLY BEING CONCERNED WITH
STOPPING AREAS OF HASSLE. (As with the behavioral approach, interventions you
attempt with the youth should be phrased and directed in positive terms if at
all possible.) Your role now becomes that of an advocate for the purpose of
executing actions in behalf of the youth and monitoring the progress of those
advocacy efforts in accomplishing your mutually agreed upon goals.

After you have gotten to know the youth you are working with and assessed
with him/her the areas of unmet individual need to be worked on, the next step
is to identify the critical individuals at the interfaces between the youth and

ADOLESCENT PROJECT 196

the social system which can meet his/her unmet need. It is insufficient to
merely target a system for advocacy. You need to identify and isolate the
individual who can provide the resource needed. It is also necessary to
determine how this individual can be influenced (i.e., what his/her vulnerabil-
ities are). For example, it is insufficient to target the local school system
as failing to provide your youth an adequate education. What you must do is
to identify the individual administrator, principal, secretary, teacher, etc.,
who can change the targeted resource. In other words, each target for change
you mutually select must include the specific resource that you would like to
effect and the individual who has control over that resource. Similarly, it
is insufficient to indict the local employment field for failing to provide
your youth with meaningful and rewarding employment. What must be done is to
select what kind of job or jobs would meet the individual need, what rate of
pay is reasonable and needed, and exactly who is in the position to provide
the youth with the employment situation desired. As can be seen a variety of
kinds of information is required to make this stage of the advocacy complete.
In addition to specifying exactly what is to be advocated for, how it can be
brought about, and who can provide the resource, you will need to gather the
maximum amount of information about the target situation and individual pos-
sible. In other words, you will need a good deal of information about the
target individual in order to make decisions about the strategy to be used in
the advocacy. Quite like the attorney taking a case to court, you have to
have your case together, know the issues involved, and understand how the
judge and jury can be persuaded. In the coming weeks, some of the strategies
involved in the advocacy method will be discussed in greater detail.

It is important in this assessment process to obtain specific information.
General, unsupported findings are unacceptable, as the following examples
illustrate:

 

 

Unacceptable Acceptable
l. The youth says his parents 1. The youth says that if he comes home
hassle him. after 11:00, his parents won't let
him out the following evening.
2. Youth says school is 0.x. 2. The youth says she likes all of her

6 classes except one, math. Her report
card indicates she received a D in math
and C's or better in everything else.
Both she and her mother report regular
attendance, missing about twice per

month.

3. Youth wants to participate in 3. Youth was told by a secretary he would
work-study program but he was have to wait 6 months to get on.work-
told he would have to wait at study. The director of the program
least 6 months. was identified and a copy of rules for

program operations obtained.

To summarize, the process of assessment is an essential starting point for
both the behavioral and the advocacy methods. The needs of the youth, the
significant others in the youth's life, the resources possessed by the youth
and his/her family, and the external resources available in the community, all
must be assessed and considered in formulating an intervention strategy. This
assessment should cover all aspects of the youth's life (home, school, friends,
free time, employment, and legal situations). Finally, although assessment is
a crucial activity in the early phase of your contact with the youth, you
should remain attentive to any new information or changes in the need or
resource situation throughout your work with the youth.

197

ADOLESCENT PROJECT

VII. Basic Principles from this Week's Material:

Initial Contact with Youth
Need/Rationale for Assessment
Assessment of unmet Needs and Potential Resources

Assessment of Interpersonal Network and Existing Behavioral
Contingencies

Resources to Use in Planning Intervention

Some General Principles of Interacting with Juveniles

198
WEEK 3

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

1. Deteribe the three aspects of the initial analysis done in Kanfer and
Saslow's system. Give an example of each.

2. What specific things should you be listening and looking for during the
initial time period when you are getting to know the youth?

3. Describe what The Ansjge‘r___B_o_9_k looks like (color, size, content, etc.).
Briefly describe a hypothetical situation in which you might use it.

199
WEEK 3

ORAL QUESTIONS

What specific information do you need to do on an advocacy intervention
strategy?

What specific information do you need to do on a behavioral intervention
strategy?

Why is it important to "have your case together" when carrying out an
advocacy effort?

Describe the cardinal rule of child advocacy and explain why it is
central to the environmental resources conception of human behavior.

List 3 or 4 methods of information collection and give examples of how
you might use them in your work.with youth.

Describe Ranfer and Saslow's view of functional analysis — how do they
see people, interactions, behavior, etc.?

200
WEEK 4
ADOLESCENT PROJECT

I. Topic: Assessment in Practice
II. Assigned Reading:

Tharp, R.G. and Wetzel, R.J. ,Behavior modification in the natural
environment. New York: Academic, 1969, 126—147.

III. Questions from Students
IV. Written Questions

V. Class Expectations

The format will be a little different in this week's class sessions. As
usual, you will have assigned readings to do and will be expected to answer
three written questions in class. After the questions have been graded and
discussed, class members will talk about and role play the homework assignments
done over the week. (See below) The grade that you usually receive for answer-
ing oral questions will be given for completing these practical assignments.

VI. Assignment #1

Collect data on a friend's behavior that is of interest to you or
someone else.

Be sure to describe the targeted behavior in observable terms.
Provide a daily report. (Including at least 6 days)

For example, your two roommates are always fighting because one (Ed)
complains that the other (Tom) plays the sterio too loud after he goes to bed.
Tem.claims that he never puts the volume above "3", which Ed had said previously
was not too loud. Tom also feels Ed goes to bed too early and shouldn't expect
everyone else to change just for him. You might monitor this for a week, by
checking the exact volume level 15 minutes after Ed has gone to bed.

 

 

Ed goes to bed

' l
221 L Sunday1 Monday} Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Fridaijaturday:
The at “1°" 10:30‘ 11:30! 10:30 11:30 12:00 10:30 11:30

 

‘Volume level 15 - 5 3 i 5 3

. Not 6 3
minutes later 1 s o
. n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

201
ADOLESCENT PROJECT

Your roomate's boss just got really angry at her, claiming she is always
late to work. This infuriated your roommate because she said she was late that
day for the first time in one month. Since she works in the dorm cafeteria and
it is possible for you to sit in there and note the time she arrives for work,
you decide to monitor her behavior. '

 

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

 

Time due 12:00 1:00 1:00 12:00 1:00 off off

 

Time arrived . _ . . .
at cafeteria 12.00 12.55 1.10 12.15 1.05 off off

counter L

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note that both of these examples involve the monitoring of an observable
event which is described very specifically. Also note that the form for record-
ing the behavior can be used easily.

Assignment #2

Choose an area of unmet need of a friend of yours. Collect the necessary
information for an advocacy assessment as detailed on pages 27—28 of the
manual. You do not need to plan a strategy to deal with the situation, only
complete an assessment. Come to class with a written summary of your findings.

VII. Discussion Questions and Role Plays
1. Come to class prepared to give some examples and to role play
talking to the youth for the first time on the phone.
2. The types of questions you would ask during early meeting
with the youth.
3. Other ways of getting information about the youth.
4. Meeting with family and teachers for the first time.
VIII. Basic Principles
A. Resistances to the Approach and Proposed Solutions.

B. Examples of observing and charting behaviors.

202
WEEK 4

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

1. What are individual resistances and replies? Give examples.

2. Discuss family and school resistances and replies.

3. Discuss community resistances and replies.

203
ADOLESCENT PROJECT WEEK 5

1. Topic: Selection and Initiation of Intervention

II. Assigned Readings (To be mastered by class time this week)

Stuart, R.B. Behavioral contracting within the families of delinquents.
In J .S. Stumphauser (Ed.), Behavior therapy with delinquents.
Springfield: Thomas, 1973, Pp. 334-350.

DeRici, W.J., and Butz, G. Writing behavioral contracts. Champaign:
Research Press, Pp. 37-55. '

Becker, Excerpt from Parents are teachers. Mimeo
Patterson, Excerpt from Families. Mimeo, Pp. 70-on

Tharp, R.G., and Wetzel, R.J. Behavior modification in the natural
environment. New York, Academic, 1969, Pp. 81—126

 

III. Questions from Students (10 minutes)

IV. Written Questions (20 minutes)

V. Group Discussion Questions (30 minutes)

VI. Role Plays and Discussion (To be described in class)
VII. Study Notes (supplement to readings)

After establishing a relationship with the youth and assessing his situation from
both the advocacy and behavioral perspectives, it will be necessary to execute
your plans of action (though the procedures described in the assessment section
should be continued in order to further your understanding of the youth and to be
sensitive to changes in the youth's life). Again, although you may very likely
employ both methods simultaneously, the two procedures will be described separ-
ately.

The Behavioral Contract

There are several general rules which you should keep in mind when you are in the
process of negotiating a contract. First, in order for something to be included
in a contract, it must be monitorable by both parties involved. If not, there's
no way to deal with it. A common mistake is to be concerned with things over
which we can have no influence. A usual‘ request from parents is to have influence
over where a kid goes and who he/she goes with. Given that they can't follow the
youth around when he/she's not at home, it's better to focus on whether or not the
youth returns on time and tells them where he/she's going. A second rule to follow
is that a request for change by either party must be capable of generating recipro-
cal change by the requester. A third rule to follow is to work on a few things
that appear important to both the youth and the other party involved. You obvious-
ly don't have time nor can you change everything right away. The intention is to
get a pattern of positive interaction initiated by focusing on a few important
events. A fourth rule is that the terms must be clear, specific and written in
common language.“

 

 

In order to initiate the process of negotiating a contract, you'll need tomeet
with all parties involved in the contract. The purpose of this meeting will be
for you to select the responsibilities, priveleges, penalties, and bonuses to be
included in the contract. This may involve extensive discussion in which you will
act as a negotiator. During this process, it will be important for you to keep
the above rules in mind. A further task for this meeting is the establishment of
a mutually available monitoring system of each person's performance under the
rules of the contract.

204
ADOLESCENT PROJECT

More specifically, you will propose, in writing, an interpersonal contract
between the youth and the various others you have identified as important or
particularly troublesome with the following components:

Privileges: Four (4) specific things which each party desires.

Responsibilities: Four (A) specific things which each party agrees
to do for the other.

Bonuses: One (1) extra desired event that each party can expect if
they do something "extra" for the other.

Sanction: One (1) specific penalty for each party should they fail
to live up to some specific condition of the contract.

Mbnitoring: A method for monitoring the performance of each party
on each of the above components which can be verified by both parties.
Common examples include diaries, checklists, charts, grade cards, etc.

Under the principle of reciprocity, one party's privileges become the other's
responsibilities and vice versa. The contract should be presented to the parties
involved as a selective set of their concerns which they agree to work on as a
beginning. You should be ready to acknowledge that the first contract cannot
focus on everything, rather it provides a place to start. The contract should
be signed by each of you. You will need to check back quite frequently initially
to monitor the progress of the contract. If you have selected things which are
truly important to each party, in other words they function as reinforcers, both
should accept it with a moderate amount of further discussion. The importance
«of very carefully watching, listening, and inquiring about important changes

for each party will become very clear at this point.

.Advocacy;Strategies of Intervention

'The.approaches available in child advocacy are multiple. The ranges of advocacy
strategies available might be thought of as varying along two continues. The first
describes various advocacy strategies ranging from positive approaches to change
tn: negative or aversive strategies. The points on this continuum include the
following:

1. At the positive end, the advocate can attempt to gain the good favor
of the person or agency in control of the needed resource.

2. At midpoint, the advocate could select a neutral strategy, often
referred to as consultation, in which information would be provided
to the critical individual or agency about the area of unmet needs.

3. At the negative end of the continuum, the advocate could decide to
take direct aversive action against the critical individual or agency.
If the needed resource is not provided, threats to take such action
are also a major component of negative strategies.

The second set of strategies available to the child advocate consists
of a continuum of approaches to bring about change that ranges from
the individual level to the societal level. The points on this
continuum include the following: (1) at the individual level, the

205

ADOLESCENT PROJECT

advocate could identify the critical person in control of the needed
resource, (2) at the administrative level, the advocate could identify
a critical agency in control of the needed resource, and (3) at the
policy level, strategies might include situations in which the
advocate could identify some political or social system that was
responsible for the resource that was lacking.

As can be seen, the first two sets of strategies will necessarily interact. In
other words, you will need to select strategies that are positive or negative
and identify systems or individuals that must be changed. Figure 1 shows the
resulting combination of strategies. The Roman numerals indicating each of these
combinations correspond to the following examples.

I.

II.

III.

IV.

Positive Strategy at the Individual Level. One common situation is that
young people's needs for education are not being met because of inappro-
priate or irrelevant aspects of their curriculum. Taking a positive-
individual strategy, the advocate would identify individual teachers
and seek their agreement to try to make adjustments in the classroom
curriculum that would be more conducive to the needs of youths.

Positive Strategy at the Administrative Level. The absence of adequate
recreational activities and facilities constitutes another typical area
of unmet needs for youths. Taking an administrative-positive approach,
the advocate would contact the city commission with a proposal for
drafting an application for a community development grant to generate
additional recreational facilities and programs.

Positive Strategy at the Policy Level. Many youths who are seen in
delinquency programs are unemployed. Taking a positive approach at the
policy level, the advocate would lobby state legislators to amend
irrelevant restrictions on the types of employment for which young
peOple could qualify and try to initiate legislation to provide jobs

in the public and private sectors.

Information-Provision Strategy at the Individual Level. Another
example of unmet recreational resources could be a particular youth's
desire to participate in organized athletics. Taking an individual-
information approach the advocate might tell the coach of a local'

"peewee" football team that the boy in question wanted to join the
league.

Information-Provision Strategy at the Administrative Level. In the
area of employment, the advocate taking an administrative-information
strategy would present information about available employees and
rates of unemployment to the director of the local youth employment
service and would see that such information was highlighted by the

f media to influence policy~makers.

VI.

Information-Provision Strategy at the Poligy Level. Educational
resources are a common area of need for all young people. In fact,
current educational systems fail to deal effectively with one-third
to one-half of American youths, many of whom, in consequence come
into contact with the juvenile justice system. Taking an information
strategy at the policy level an advocate would present the state
board of education and state superintendent of schools with drapout

Policy
vs.
Individual

Strategies

A Multiple Strategy Model

Figure l

INTERACTION OF ADVOCACY STRATEGIES

Positive vs. Negative Strategies

 

 

 

Positive Neutral Negative
Individual 1 1v v11
Administrative II V VIII

 

 

Policy 111 VI IX

 

 

 

 

 

2 O 7
mason“ “‘03 ECT

rates and preferences for educational alternatives and would highlight
the right of all students to a public education.

‘VIIJ Eggative Strategy‘at the Individual Level. Youths are often denied
access to employment because of the employer's knowledge of past
deviance. Taking an individual-negative approach, the advocate would
have the local media cover the story about a young person's being
denied a job by the particular employer.

\IIII. Negative Strategy_at the Administrative Level. Youths are often denied
access to alternative education because of the lack of availability.
Taking a negative strategy at the administrative level, the advocate
would initiate a class-action suit against the school district for
failing to meet its legislative mandate to educate all youth.

IV. Eggative Strategy at the Policy Level. Frequently, youths are not
employed by the very programs designed to employ them (for example, the
Neighborhood Youth Corps), because of group membership or place of
residence. Taking a negative-policy strategy, the advocate would enjoin
a legislative committee to investigate the federal agency charged with
operating such youth-employment programs, holding it responsible for
its employment practices and the quality of the jobs provided.

The actual combinations of strategies that could result are practically endless
and depend on the situation, the people involved, the resource in question, and
the person controlling the resource. A critical step is to assess the potential
impact of alternative strategies.

It is the intention to build an advocacy approach which you will be able to use
on an individual basis. In other words, you will want to select the most prom-
ising advocacy strategy based on the following factors: (1) What you know about
the target individual or individuals and where they are "vulnerable" to change
efforts. Anything we jointly know about the target individual and previous
attempts to institute change should provide us clues as to what type of strategy
and level of intervention holds the most promise. (2) What intervention
strategy is likely to produce the most durable change. There's no sense in
following exclusively short-run approaches. In short, many unmet needs may call
for policy level changes in the handling of various community resources rather
than only a decision relevant to a particular case.

It is anticipated that during the initial stages of your involvement with the
youth assigned to you that you will carry out the advocacy effort _f_9_r; the youth.
Later, during the'18 weeks of involVement you will'be instructing the youth

in carrying out his/her own advocacy. Throughout it, it is important that you
keep the youth informed as to the progress of your efforts and to continually
check on his/her' satisfaction with ongoing developments. In other words, you
want to carry out advocacy for the youth but you want to keep him/her involved.

The actual advocacy effort is governed by the general principle of action. In
other words, you are to be very outgoing, persistent, and insistent in your
efforts to mobilize the community's resources for your youth. One common form
the advocacy effort will take is personal contact with the target individual or
indiViduals. Several things about exactly how you approach the target individual
are important. First, you do not want to present the youth you are working with
in a negative light as an excuse for why he/she needs a certain resource. The

208

AWLESCENT PROJECT

youth you will be working with will have already been identified as having
"problem" of one sort or another by multiple people and adding fuel to that

fire is winter-productive. Second, it is important that you are well aware of
the style of the target individual you will be trying to persuade, by positive
or negative means, so that your entry into the system in question can be facili—
tated. This does not mean that you need to agree with or be co-opted by the
local school, euployment, recreational, social, etc., systems. However, you will
need to be intricately aware of their modes of operation so that you can use
their existing resources to the best advantage of the youth you are working with.
It should be obvious that the initial phase of assessing the target individuals
and systems provides you a critical base for gaining entry to the comunity's
resources. Third, you do not want to jeopardize the credibility or integrity of
the youth you are working with, yourself, or the program. In other words, your
contacts with critical individuals you have targeted. For example, if a child
has been excluded from his/her rights to an education through school suspension,
and the suspension did not conform to either the procedural safeguards or the
substantive requirements governing suspension, you would find yourself directly
in opporition to school officials in your efforts to either get the youth
reinstated or demanding that the school system provide an educational alternative
for that youth. Your interpretation of the situation, from the perspective of
the youth, may be in conflict with those controlling the resource in question.
It is your job to see that the rights of the youth are executed to the fullest
extent.

In addition to direct advocacy efforts gig personal contact you may also be
involved in indirect advocacy efforts which involve phone calls, correspondence.
and contacts with others closely related to the target person. In addition to
trying to convince the target person of the unfulfilled need of your youth,
another effective route for advocates is to bring indirect pressure on the target
individual through other people. For example, if your target individual were
the director of a local youth employment program (e.g., Neighborth Youth Corp.)
to get a useful job for your youth, you might also want to contact the local
Board of Directors and/or funding source of that program to bring additional
influence on the target individual. In general, indirect advocacy efforts will
be accomplished as a supplement to the direct advocacy effort. It is critical
that a single individual be targeted for the advocacy effort so as not to engage
in amorphous system blaming as an alternative to action.

Again, it should be emphasized that these two methods are not mutually exclusive.
A given area of the youth's life might call for the use of either, neither, or
both methods. The success of your intervention will be considerably dependent
won your ability to creatively respond to each problem on an individual basis
and apply the technique that best deals with the situation. In other words, you
should not decide which technique you like the most from the readings and use
that method indiscriminately, but rather you should let the nature of each
problem dictate the appropriate action.

209

ADOLESCENT PROJECT

Basic Principles from this Week's Material

A.

Stuart's view of family interpersonal relationships.
Initiation of involvement with an assigned youth.
Components of a good contract.

Selecting an advocacy strategy.

Information necessary for the initial advocacy effort.
Principles governing direct advocacy.
The role of indirect advocacy.
Intervention effects of assessment.
Selecting reinforcers.

Strategies for developing new behaviors.

210
WEEK 5

ROLE PLAY OF CONTRACTING SESSION

Youth - 15 year old male - 9th grade

"wants" - To stay out later, money, not get bugged all the time.

Parents - Mr. and Mrs. Blue Collar

Stage 1

”wants" - chores done around house, kid to come in on time and
kid to "shape up" and/or "grow-up".

Important_points to consider

A.

Do preliminary assessment with each party to find out general
wants, problems, etc.

Must propose the idea of a contract, to each party separately,
and explain briefly what it is, etc., and persuade them to
enter a contracting session. (Be able to deal with resistances
i.e., don't want to bribe, etc.)

'Must bring people together (physically).

Do an intro. rap to both parties and lay out ground rules.

1. Specific wants only (i.e., specify what behavior is wanted)
2. Analogy to a legal contract, etc.

3. Importance of reciprocity.

Supervisors - you.may want to secretly coach the "parents" to bring up
resistance.

le
WEEK 5

ADVOCACY DISCUSSION AND ROLE PLAY

Harvey Hardluck is 15 years old and was working in city parks in
summer job programs funded by feds. He was fired. The boss gave no
explanation but Harvey thinks he is suspected of ripping off some tools.

Assign different students to come up with examples of how specific
strategy categories could be used. For instance, ask a student "How
could a negative policy strategy be used."

Assign different students to role play any interactions implied
by the suggested strategies, such as approaching the boss, the program
director, etc.

Do as many strategies (using different categories) and role plays
as time permits.

212
WEEK 5

WRITTEN QUESTIONS
1. What are the three principles governing the implementation of the direct

advocacy approach? Why is the principle of credibility important to the
advocacy approach?

2. Describe the five general rules to consider when you formulate and
negotiate a contract. (before writing it up)

3. What methods are available for deveIOping new behaviors and removing
undesired ones?

213
WEEK 5

ORAL QUESTIONS

How do you go about arriving at an interpersonal agreement between the
youth and the several significant others in his/her life? How does the‘
principle of reciprocity affect this process?

What

is meant by the ”exchange of positives in an interpersonal interaction?

Describe the positive-negative continuum of available advocacy strategies
and give examples of each.

What
Wh at
What
What

What
(How

information is necessary for the initial advocacy effort?

is the criticism trap and how can it be avoided? Give examples.
are some of the negative effects of punishment?

are the intervention effects of assessment?

are the possible sources of reinforcement/privileges?
do you find out what a good reinforcement is?)

214
WEEK 6
ADOLESCENT PROJECT

I. Topic: Contracting and Advocacy Interventions in Practice
II. Assigned Readings (To be mastered by class time this week)
State of Michigan, Child Labor Laws, 1974, Pp. 103-113, 153-155

Lansing School System, Code of Student Conduct for Elementary and
SecondaryASchools.

Lansing School System, Discipline Infractions.

Levine, A. The rights of students: New York: Avon, 1973, Pp. 55-90
III. Questions from Students
IV. Written Questions

V. Discussion of Case Studies and Role Plays (To be described in class)

VI. Basic Principles

A. Rights of students

B. School supervisors-—rights and procedures

C. Juvenile Labor Laws-~protections and exemptions

D. Work permits

E. Relation of school to Law Enforcement

The following case studies will be discussed in class. Come to class with
any comments or questions written down. Also, what would you have asked or
done differently if you had been the volunteer?

The.following case study highlights the principles, activities, and anticipated
«outcomes of the behavioral contracting method of intervention.

BEEMNIORAL CONTRACTING CASE

.Joe was a sixteen-year-old who had come to the attention of the juvenile division
for possession of marijuana and violation of the municipal curfew laws. Prior to
the referral to the Adolescent Diversion Project, Joe had had five contacts with
the police, including possession of controlled substances, truancy from school,
and curfew violation. Joe lived in a middle-class area of Urbana-Champaign and

21 5
ADOLESCENT PROJECT

both of his parents were employed. His father worked as a maintenance department
supervisor and his mother was a salesperson in a local department store. During
intake and preassessment, Joe had expressed a sports interest and was assigned

to a male student volunteer who had a similar interest.

After being assigned to Joe, the student called Joe at home and set up a time for
them to get together. Joe invited the student to his house for the following
evening. At that initial meeting, the student explained the project briefly to
Joe and his parents. He and Joe were then left alone by Joe's parents. Conver-
sation was initially difficult, and the student had to carry the conversation for
the first hour by talking about such day-to-day things as what he was taking at
the University, what life in Chicago (student's home town) had been like, and the
student's intramural football team. Although Joe had been rather quiet initially,
particularly in the presence of his parents, he gradually began to discuss his own

situation .

Joe indicated that he was in high school but was pretty turned off to the whole
school situation. He said that he skipped whenever he got the chance. He talked
of his interests in sports, particularly the Babe Ruth baseball team he pitched
for and the Sunday afternoon football group he hung around with. In discussing
his home situation, Joe said that he didn't really mind it at home, but that "I
spend as much time as possible away from home, with the guys or my girlfriend."
The initial contact ended with Joe and the student making plans for the upcoming
weekend, either to go to a football game or to play football together. 'IVo days
later, Joe called the student and invited him to play football on Sunday with Joe
and his friends. In the words of the student, "As he put it, it's tackle and it's
rough-«Somehow I have the feeling this was my first test...The game was pretty
tough, but it was good..."

During the remainder of the initial two weeks Joe and the student went to a movie,
played football again, had dinner together and talked on the phone several times.
During this time the students had some difficulty getting in touch with Joe but
each time they talked, the student stated that "he's genuinely glad to hear from me."

Following the initial "get acquainted" period, the student began to work on asses-
sing Joe's situation more specifically in order to initiate a contract between Joe
and his parents. The student proceeded by setting up two somewhat more formal
sessions with Joe and his parents. These sessions were held at Joe's home. The
student began by explaining the idea of behavioral contracts, and what was required
by both parties. This initial "contracting session" resulted in a consensus on the
general areas of change desired by both Joe and his parents. Joe's parents thought
Joe should show more responsibility around the house, keep better hours, and im—
prove his appearance. Joe wanted to get his parents off his back and get a com-
ponent stereo set. At the conclusion of this session, the student asked both Joe
and his parents to specify these changes in greater detail prior to the next meeting.

At the next meeting the parents specified some agreements they would like to exact
from Joe. They felt he should: (1) inform his parents where he was after school
and return home before 5:00 p.m.; (2) make his bed and clean his room daily; (3) put
out the garbage on' Wednesday and Fridays; (4) set the table for dinner each night;
(5) mow the lawn or shovel the snow as needed; (6) cut his hair; (7) improve his
grades in school. Joe specified for the contract that he (1) be allowed to earn at
least $5.00 per week toward the stereo he wanted; (2) be allowed to go out four
week nights and two weekend nights; (3) be allowed to choose his friends without
interference or harassment from his parents.

On the basis of this information, the student drew up a tentative agreement between
Joe and his parents. During the two week period required to initiate the contract
the student also spent about two hours each week talking with Joe's parents about
their several concerns. At the beginning of the sixth week the following contract
was implemented.

 

 

Joe agrees to: Joe'sgparents agree to:

I. Call home by 4:00 p.m. each afternoon 1. Allow Joe to go out from
and tell his parents his whereabouts and 7:30 to 9:30 Monday through
return home by 5:00 p.m. Thursday evenings and ask

about his companions with-
out negative comment.

2. Return home by 12:00 midnight on week- 2. Allow Joe to go out the
and nights. subsequent weekend night.
3- Make his bed daily and clean his room. 3. Check his roomleach day
daily (spread neat; clothes hung up). and pay him $.75 when
cleaned. ‘
4. Set table for dinner daily. 4. Deposit $.75 per day in a

savings account for Joe.

Bonus

If Joe performs at 801 or above #1 through #4 above, his parents will deposit
an additional $3.00 in his account for each consecutive seven day period.

Sanction

If Joe falls below 602 in #1 and #2 above in any consecutive seven day period,
he will cut two inches off his hair.

.At this time the student also set up daily checklists on each of the terms
of the contract to be jointly used by Joe and his parents to record each
other' a performance.

Following the implementation of the initial contract, the student began
‘meeting‘with Joe and his parents on a weekly basis to go over the checklists
on the contract specifications. In addition, the student and Joe spent three
to five hours per week in various recreational activities. These included

sports events, a party at the student's house, and riding around in the
student's car.

Joe's performance on the contract was consistently 902 or above. However, two
'weeks after it began, Joe received grades for the term. Although the student's
earlier visit with Joe's teachers had indicated that they were "completely
satisfied with Joe's performance,” he received an F, two D's, one B, one C

and two incompletes. This report card created considerable controversy
between Joe and his parents. The student held an extra meeting with Joe and

his parents in which he suggested that school performance be included in the
contract.

The result was the combination of the household responsibilities (bed making,
table setting) into a single responsibility with payment on a weekly rather
than daily basis. Daily checksheets were established with Joe's teachers
and he was able to earn additional savings towards his stereo. During the
same time period, Joe had located a part-time job doing maintenance work and
the use of his earnings had become a heated domestic issue. A further
.addition was made to the contract whereby Joe agreed to save $15/week in

217

return for the use of his parent's family room for his friends on one weekend
:night.

Within two weeks, Joe was consistently performing at a 100% level on all
contract items and both he and his parents reported to the volunteer that
they were more satisfied with the situation. In addition, Joe had been in

‘no further difficulty with the police, and his next report card contained one
A, one B, and three C's.

I)uring the seventeenth and eighteenth weeks, the student held two final
sessions with Joe and his parents. These sessions focused on a general
(iiscussion of the contracting approach and its use on an ongoing basis. They
'role-played negotiations of several situations that had become troublesome
in the past and the student coached them in specifying what each party wanted,
stating requests in terms of positives, negotiating reciprocal agreements,
and monitoring the contract. The student explained that his involvement with
them had come to an end since they had made some real gains and that they
should use the procedures in the future when difficulties arose. The student
reported that they parted on a very friendly basis and that he had heard from
Joe spontaneously several times before leaving the University.

In sum, the behavioral contracting model involved the following activities
on the part of the student intervention agent:

During the first weeks of contact the student attempted to build
rapport with the youth and began to assess areas of interpersonal
conflict. Attention was focused on the home and school and on

selection of behaviors to be modified and critical persons to be
involved.

The following week the student involved the youth and those
persons with.whom he or she had a "dysfunctional relationship"

in a process of specifying the behaviors or attitudes each would
like Changed.

Sometime near the fourth week, the student "negotiated" the
written agreement between the parties. The contract specified

what each person would change in the relationship and what each
could expect.

Throughout the intervention, the student functioned as a
mediator, assisted in the renegotiation of the contract, as

necessary, and helped the parties achieve satisfactory results
from the process.

Approximately four weeks prior to termination, the student
attempted to instruct the youth and other persons involved in
the contract in how to maintain an ongoing process of behavioral

contracting. After instruction and sufficient practice, student
involvement was terminated.

218

QMMVocecyCaseal

Don was a twelve-year-cld who had had four previous contacts with
the police. His previous contacts included arson. theft. and in-
eorriqibility. Don was in the seventh grade and an A and B stu-
dent in school. Don's father worked as a municipal employee and
his mother as a secretary. At the time of referral. Don was being
charged with theft from his neighbor's house. Following intake
and pre—assessment. Don was assigned to a student volunteer.

The student lads the initial contact.with Don by phone. explain~
ing that he was with the University's Adolescent Diversion Proj~
ect and that he would like to get together with Don. By the
student's report. Don sounded rather disinterested. but ”a very
intelligent kid.“ Their initial meeting was at.Don‘s home. and
the student met Don and his parents. he and Don talked for an
hour about the project and the student's activities at the
university. They spent the remainder of the initial contact
playing catch in the backyard and parted by agreeing to get
together on the following Saturday. The remainder of the initial
two-week period was spent in a variety of activities. Don and
the student spent two days on the campus attending fraternity
soccer games. going to the University museum. and having lunch
at a campus restaurant.

The student also met with Don's parents. They were quite intent
on ”explaining” Don's problems in terms of his early childhood
experiences resulting from a previously broken.marriage. They
felt that such early trauaa had left irreparable effects on t
which were responsible for the current delinquency.

219

ht the beginning of the third week. the student initiated his ‘
seating with Don by explaining the general principles of child
advocacy. He expressed to Dds that they needed to be concerned
with ways in which Don would be able to obtain the kinds of
things he wanted. He went on to explain that these might involve
programs.activitiea. or employment that Don felt would be useful.
as furthsr suggested that what he and Don sight do together could
be included. This precipitated a series of discussions surround-
ing Don‘s interests and the activities he would enjoy. Don and
the student continued their activities over the next two weeks.
attending an intramural football game and going on a "nature
hike" while still discussing Don's needs. These discussions

culminated in an agreement between Don and the student to focus
on the following activities:

1. Earning his own honey:
2. Joining an ice hockey club:

3. Getting involved in a recreational group. partic-
ularly those involving swimming and gymnastics:

4. Joining a nature study group.

During the fifth week of the project. Don and the student set
about determining what community resources existed for meeting
their objectives. what strategy they would follow in obtaining
each. and which of them would take the responsibility for
following through with each. They went together to the
University library to look through the county directory of
social services. The student also called the local park
department end the Boy Scout agency. After deterudning the
availability of the needed programs and activities. Don and the
student then constructed the following set of strategies and
responsibilities:

1. Employgggt. Don and student discussed the realities
of a lzeyear-old gaining employ-ant legally. They
realised that more infernal ways of earning money
would have to be sought and decided that Don would
circulate among his neighbors a flyer indicating
his availability for odd jobs (gardening. leaf
raking. garage cleaning. window washing. etc.).
This would be followed up by personal contacts with
each family on his block.

220

2. Ice Hockey. The student took the responsibility for
contacting the head of the local youth hockey club.
for additional information and determination or eli-
gibility requirements. time commitments. fees. etc.

3. Gymnastics. Their earlier eearch for information had
indicated that the local YMCA had a weekly gymnastics
instruction program Wednesday after school. Don
agreed to go and eign up. The student agreed to ask
Don'e parents for the $10 registration fee.

4. gginnigg. Don agreed to eign up for the Saturday
twinning program at school.

5. Nature. Don and the student were to go together to

an organizational meeting for the neighborhood Boy
Scoute Troop.

Although Don indicated that he had been interested in these
activities for some time. his parents had been more interested
in hie etaying around the house.

The etudent eat up a meeting with the parente end enplained to
then the rationale for involving Don in these activities and how
the activities were selected. According to the student’s
report. the parents were very supportive of the plan and offered
to provide transportation and additional fees when needed.

Don and the student were eucceoaful in accomplishing each of
their etated goals except the ice hockey which wouldn't atart
for two months. Don worked up hie ”small bueineae” to where
it kept hie occupied two afternoons per week: by the end of the
project he had even opened a eavinge account. he was also
involved on a regular basis in the other activities. Hie
mother reported “he's been extremely reeponsible lately.”

About eiduay through the project, Don's family decided that they
would be moving out of state after the first of the year. Don
and the student turned their attention in that last month to
preparing for the move. This took the form of having Don get
information from his new community about the potential for
aieilar activities there and planning strategiee for how he would
involve himself in the new community. According to the student‘s
report. Don uaa even to the point or having written a plan 0!
action for himself art-r receiving internation about the new
community in the nail. They spent their laet two sessions
together with Don's parents explaining the importance of the
advocacy etrategy for future situations.

__,..,..4. . .

 

.221

'ChfldAhwunaoyCMQBeZ

Mike was a sixteenuyear-old who at the tine of his referral

was facing charges for attempted murder and aggravated assault.
This was Mike‘s first offense in the local community since moving
here from a large urban area five weeks earlier. Mike lived with
his mother who was employed as a surgical aide in a local hospi-
tal. Before coming to the local community, Mike had been deeply
involved in gang activity. he had been on probation in his
previous community. After intake and pre-assessment. Hike was
assigned to a student volunteer.

By the student’s report. Mike was very quiet during that first
meeting. The student said that “He celled no 'Sir.° and I
freaked out.“ After a rather uncoununicative hour, the volun-
teer asked hike'what he would like to do. and he indicated an
interest in shooting pool. As a result, they went to the
University Union and talked and played pool. Their next two
weeks together involved mostly recreational activities. They
attended a University basketball game. had dinner at the stu-
dent's house. and shot pool. Before the first two weeks were
up. the project was informed that the prosecuting attorney's
office intended to file a petition on the attempted murder
charges even though the police had agreed to divert Mike to the
project. Mike received a five-day notice to appear in court for
a preliminary hearing. He called the student and asked him what
he should do. The student suggested that they go to the prelim~
inary hearing together. and that the first step should be to re-
quest an attorney.

Mike, his mother, and the volunteer attended the prelhainary
hearing and. at the volunteer's suggestion. Hike remained silent
except to request an attorney. a continuance was granted for

two weeks to allow for a court-appointed attorney to be
involved in the case.

222

Inc days after the initial court hearing, Hike went to the
student's house and initiated a discussion of what they should
do next. According to the student. this was the first time'tnet
he had any indication that Mike was interested in actively
‘participating in the project. A lengthy discussion followed
in which the student explained the whole notion of advocacy and
that they would have to ”have their case together” it they were
to convince the court that severe action was unnecessary. He
explained that it would be important that they be able to
convince the judge that the project provided a positive
alternative to probation or placement away from home.

During the next two weeks. the student and Mike talked on the
phone three times per week and continued their recreational
activities. They discussed various community programs and
activities which would interest Mike. Hike expressed a
particular need to do this since he was new to the community.
Because the shooting incident in question involved some of the
“prominent” kids in his neighborhood. he was pretty much a
loner socially.

Together they identified the following needs and community
programs:

1. Department of Vocational Rehabilitation. Hike was
considerably behind in school and was interested in
part time employment. he was behind to the point
that he was unable to read and continuing to attend

regular ninth grade classes was of little potential
benefit.

2. Junior varsity basketball team. Mike was a good
basketball player butwhad not gone out for the
basketball team because he was not aware of when
and where practice and tryouts occurred.

3. Recreational activities. Hike felt that he needed

additional activities to nest other youth in the
community.

Mike and the student discussed the. need for developing a
strategy to gain access to the desired programs. They spent an
.afternoon going over a catalogue of programs in the local

"‘ -0.— .

223

community and determining who was going to take responsibility
for making the necessary contacts. The student agreed to set
up»a meeting with Mike and his school counselor so they could
get more internation concerning the vocational program available
through the school. Mike agreed to approach the basketball *
coach. explain his situation. and request permission to try out.
They agreed to go together to look into several recreational
programs available through the Boy‘s Club and the park.district.

Mike's scheduled court hearing was postponed for a month due to
-the absence of the presiding judge. Mike’s attorney indicated
that they would request a further continuance. to give them

time to demonstrate that formal court supervision was not neces~
sary for Mike.

Mike was successful in gaining permission to try out for the
basketball team and started playing regularly. Gaining access
to the vocational resources proved more difficult. A number of
pre-assessment screenings were necessary for Mike to enroll in
the school district‘s vocational rehabilitation program. The
meeting with the school counselor cullinated in an appointment for
physical and psychological testing. The actual testing was
delayed on two occasions. however. Finally. the student
confronted the school counselor and vocational rehabilitation
coordinator for an explanation for the delays. They indicated
that Mike had been missing school on several occasions, and they
weren't sure he was a "good risk.“ The student next went to

the district director of the program and demanded that Mike be
admitted to the vocational and work study program, threatening
intervention by Mike's attorney. Within two weeks Mike was
enrolled in half-day vocational classes and participating in
work/study-enploynent the other half day.

When the formal court hearing was finally held (three months
after referral). the student and Mike's attorney were successful
in convincing the judge that formal intervention by the court
would be counterproductive. An internal review was scheduled in
60 days. but Hike was not formally adjudicated. At this point.
the student began reviewing the principles of advocacy with
Mike.' Unfortunately. however. two weeks prior to his termina-
tion, Mike was arrested for theft (shoplifting) and was formally
placed on probation at his review hearing.

. -1 We”. ..,. ,

0 ‘

224
WEEK 6

ROLE PLAY OF CONTRACTING SESSION

Role play the actual negotiation of a contract based on the
situation set up in week 5 role play.

ImportantApoints to consider

E.

G.

Have each party outline wants, have other party respond
as to their perception of the situation.

Look for common ground and offer Opinions as to possible
trade-offs
1. Avoid choosing sides
2. Don't let them get off the track and into
general bitching

Actually physically write-up a suitable contract.
Remind them of need for specific behaviors, ease
and reliability of monitoring, etc.

Set up ground rules for monitoring compliance by each
side.

Have students critique the resulting written contract.

225
WEEK 6

ADVOCACY ROLE PLAY AND DISCUSSION

Nat Natural, your 13 year-old youth, has been busted. A store-
owner he knew, but did not work for, gave him $20.00 to go get some
change down the street. The youth returned without the money, claim-
ing some older kids took it. The storeowner took him to the police,
where a $10.00 bill was found in his hair.

Use last weeks instructions, assigning students' new categories
of strategies to use. Role play implied interactions.

226
WEEK 6

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

1. What Rules govern search and seizure and interogation of students?

2. When minors under 18 years old want to secure the necessary work permit,
what prerequisites are necessary?

3. Describe the right to due process and discuss at least two applications
to suspension and expulsion from schools. (general)

227
WEEK 7
I. Tapic: Monitoring Interventions

II. Assigned Readings:

DeRici, W.J., and Butz, G. Writing_behavioral contracts, Champaign:
Research Press. Pp. 57-66.

Levine, A. The rights of students, New York: Avon, 1973. Pp.97-110
111. Questions from Students (10 minutes)
IV. Written Questions (20 minutes)

V. Group Discussion Questions (30 minutes)
VI. Role Play and Discussion

VII. Study Notes (Supplement to readings)

Once you have put into effect the strategies discussed in past week, you must imme-
diately begin the important process of monitoring your intervention. Indeed, a
critical part of the contracts you negotiate and the advocacy you conduct is the
monitoring systems which you build into the overall strategy. Paralleling the
previous weeks discussions in this handbook, the monitoring procedures for

the behavioral and the advocacy interventions will be discussed separately. Once
again, however, you should keep in mind that you may very well be simultaneously
carrying out and monitoring interventions of each type in your work with your
youth.

Monitoring the Behavioral Intervention

One of the most important facets of any contract you negotiate and execute with
the youth and significant others is the system you design for monitoring the
agreement. A sound monitoring system, which will provide accurate information
about performance to all parties involved, is important for primarily two reasons.
First, the implications of the operant interpersonal explanation of delinquent
behavior suggest that accurate feedback which is specific and positive in focus
provides the basis of effective interpersonal relationships. In other words, the
monitoring system sets up regular opportunities for all parties to discuss
positive accomplishments. The operation of the monitoring systems you set up will
initiate the process of specific positive goal-oriented interactions between the
youth and significant people in the youth's environment.-

The second reason, closely related to the first, is that mutually monitorable
accomplishments will limit the areas of concern to the parties involved to those
things which can be modified. By carefully selecting privileges and responsibil-
ities to fit into a mutually monitorable system you will decrease irrelevant
arguments in the interactions between the youth and others. It will also decrease
disagreements about the performance of each party on the contract items during
monitoring sessions between yourself and the parties involved.

Your role for involvement with the youth during this monitoring/renegotiation
segment of the intervention (from the third week of the first month until two
weeks prior to termination) becomes very much that of negotiator. Although your
primary responsibility is still to the youth to which you are assigned, an
effective strategy for exerting that responsibility is through the monitoring of
the interpersonal agreements which you set up. Thus, the majority of your time

228
' WEEK 7 -. ADOLESCENT PROJECT CONTINUED

will be spent in going over the information from the monitoring system with the
various people involved in each interpersonal agreement. You will be asking
people to keep accurate information for you on the progress of each other's
behavior, and you will be meeting with them, AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK PER CONTRACT,
to go over that information. It is important that you give specific instructions
as to exactly how the information is to be kept. It is necessary to get the
information written down right after the performance in question occurs or

fails to occur. For example, one of the things you might be working on with the
youth and the parents is the time at which the youth has to be in at night. You
must instruct both parties to keep a record of curfew promptness each night. A
good idea during the initial negotiation is to provide various instigations for
each person to keep the records in question. One way is to have them tell you
how, when, and where they will do it, as you are setting the system up, and to
specify when you will be getting together the next time to go over each person's

progress .

There are several ground rules which apply to this monitoring/renegotiation
phase of the intervention. The general format is to meet with both parties
involved in an agreement on a very regular basis in the early going and gradually
fade out your involvement in anticipation of termination. Your meetings with
these parties should be generally restricted to the feedback from the monitoring,
system. In other words, the people will be presenting you with the information
they have been keeping. Discussion of the thousand and one other things each
person may also want to change must be limited by your initial goal to work on

a select set of important things at one time. Imediate perfection is an
unrealistic goal. It will take some time for the system to begin generating
large-scale improvements. The temptation will be to cash in the initial contract
in favor of renegotiation at the first failure on the part of either party.

What you want to pay particular attention to is exactly how the people involved
in each agreement are executing the contract. The information you receive from
the monitoring system should provide you the basis for further inquiry as to
what happened when each person complied with or violated the agreement. In
other words, you should specifically ask "What exactly happened when.. . .7" You
will usually have to ask that question several times at first in order to find
out exactly what happened since people are not used to providing such informa-
tion in response to the general question. Finding out how the contract is being
used in actuality will allow you to provide feedback in line with the principles
outlined earlier. Again, it is important to maintain your role as negotiator.
You want to be particularly sensitive to your prescribed role as negotiator at
this monitoring/renegotiation phase. In providing feedback to either party it
is important that you also follow the principles you are asking them to follow.
In other words, you should provide feedback in terms of what alternative
response the person in question could make to contract compliance or violation
rather than only providing empty criticism. You want to be careful not to
alienate either party involved in the contract with negative feedback which is

overkill. Negative feedback conceggg interpersonal performance should always
be niecededgbfiyuandmbglanced by positive feedback and wstions.

11,.“ will be times when you find that for a variety of reasons the initial
contract is not meeting the interpersonal goals of the two parties involved.
Such failure may be a result of inadequate assessment in determining which
changes are actually important to each party or that the initial interpersonal
situation may have changed. It may also be the case that the initial contract
quickly accomplished its stated goals. In any case, you, together with the
youth and the supervisory group may decide that it would be more beneficial to

229
kmEX;7.r ADOLESCENT PROJECT CONTINUED

attempt to renegotiate the initial agreement. Such renegotiation should follow
these general decision rules: (1) You should not consider renegotiation until
after at least three to four weeks of implementing the initial agreement. (2)
The contract renegotiation should follow the same procedures as the negotiation
of the initial agreement. (3) You should involve all parties, including the
supervisory group, in the renegotiation process. (A) The renegotiation should
be based on the information you have gained from executing the initial agreement.

In the case of renegotiation for the purpose of moving on to additional 30818.
after accomplishing those laid out in the initial contract, it is important that
each party involved receive additional privileges if they are to be asked to
take on additional responsibilities. It is not sufficient to merely add respon-
sibilities to the new agreement for the same pool of privileges. In other words,
you don't want to place either party in double jeopardy. You should be able to
select new privileges for each party from the information provided by executing
the initial agreement. By listening carefully to the things which each party is
concerned about and watching the things they do in interpersonal exchanges you
should be able to get additional information useful in the renegotiation process.

When a contract is renegotiated for reasons of less than desired performance on
the part of either person, you should also follow the principles laid out for
the initial contract negotiation. In general, if one or both of the individuals
is not meeting the terms of the contract they have not received interpersonal
exchanges which they value for their performance. You will therefore be involved
in one of two general activities in this type of renegotiation. In one instance
you will have to negotiate additional privileges for either or both parties to
be exchanged for increased performance. If it is your assessment that the
existing privileges are sufficient to induce the desired change, another Option
is to upgrade the execution of the specific terms of the agreement in terms of
how and when privileges are delivered, the consistency with which they are
delivered, eliminating negative feedback given contiguous with grudgingly
provided privileges, etc.

Monitoring the Advocacy Intervention

Careful monitoring is also an important component of the advocacy approach. In

this approach monitoring involves paying close attention to the effects of your

advocacy efforts. It is particularly important that you listen carefully to

the youth you are working with as to his/her satisfaction with the changes which
have been brought about.

It is also important that you check the specific effects of the change directly.
Advocacy and accountability go hand in hand. Often you may find that changes
which have been specifically agreed to by the target individual, (such as changes
in the resources to be made available to the youth) are not being carried out
exactly as planned or may be producing undesired side effects. For example,
let's say that you are working with a youth who has been left to sit in a special
education program which is irrelevant to either his areas of interest of future
vocational or educational aspirations. One obvious move you would make would

be to work out a curriculum change with the youth's counselor so that the youth's
interest and potential were better served by the education system. Without care—
ful checking with the youth and the new situation which he/she had been placed

in as a result of your efforts, you might assume that the educational needs were
being met. However, after careful checking with all concerned you may find that
the new classes which had appeared so useful on the surface were in fact also

230
ADOLESCENT PROJECT

irrelevant for the needs of the youth. In this case you would need to reassert
the rights of the youth through additional advocacy strategies.

The key to adequate monitoring of your advocacy efforts is to ask very specific
educated questions of the youth and the other parties involved. In other words,
you need to know enough about the situation that you are able to accurately

probe for the information you need to assess whether anything useful has happened.
When inquiring about the progress of change efforts you cannot accept the
“Everything’s okay” reaponse. You need to find out exactly what has happened
without playing 20 questions. You are likely to get accurate feedback: if you
have established a friendship with the youth, are sufficiently informed about

the changes desired, can inquire in a manner that the youth can understand, and
can convince him that you know what you are talking about.

Similar to the renegotiations that may need to occur with the behavioral approach,
you may also find it necessary to initiate some secondary advocacy efforts. A
number of comments about such efforts need to be made. First, you should allow
adequate time for the initial changes to take place. Skeptical patience
describes the position you should take. Second, careful monitoring of the change
process should provide you additional information to use in the event that
further direct or indirect action is needed. Third, after allowing three to four
weeks for the desired effect to take place, you should assess together with the
youth and the supervisory group whether additional effort in an area of unmet
need is indicated. In general, secondary advocacy efforts should include a care-
ful scrutiny of the initial strategy used, approach taken, and the specific
target as an individual. You may decide that another strategy is indicated or
that the initial effort needs to be executed again.

Regardless of what intervention was attempted there are two basic questions.
First, was the intervention properly and completely executed. Second, did
the intervention result in the desired changes in the youth's life. The
answers to these two questions indicate your next step.
VI. Basic Principles from this Week’s Material

A. Characteristics of a sound monitoring system

B. Rationale for a monitoring system

0. Decision principles for contract renegotiation

D. Strategies for contract renegotiation

E. How to monitor the effects of the initial advocacy

F. Decision rules for secondary advocacy efforts

G. Personal appearance rights

H. Decisions related to discrimination

l. The use of tracking in schools

231
TROUBLESHOOTING GUIDE

The following questions may help you to spot the problems in your
contracting system.
THE CONTRACT
1. Was the target behavior clearly specified?
2. Did the contract provide for immediate reinforcement?
3. Did it ask for small approximations to the desired behavior?
4. Was reinforcement frequent and in small amounts?

5. Did the contract call for the reward accomplishment rather
than obedience?

6. Was the performance rewarded after its occurrence?
7. Was the contract fair?

8. were the terms of the contract clear?

9. Was the contract honest?
10. Was the contract positive?
11. Was contracting as a method being used systematically?
12. Was the contract mutually negotiated?
13. Was the penalty clause too punitive?

THE CLIENT

1. Did he understand the contract?

2. Is be getting the reinforcer from some other source?
3. Do the reinforcers have to be reevaluated?

4. Has a new problem behavior developed that is drawing the
mediator's attention away from the target behavior?

THE MEDIATOR
.1. Did the mediator understand the contract?

2. Did he dispense the kind and amount of reinforcement
specified in the contract?

3. Did he dispense it according to instructions, at the
rate specified, and with consistency?

232
TROUBLESHOOTING GUIDE Continued Page 2

THE HEDIATOR (Continued)

4. Did punishment accidentally accompany the performance being
reinforced?

5. Did he stop mediating?
6. Do you need a new mediator?
I'IEASUREMENT
1. Have the data been verified as accurate?

2. Did your data collector understand what he was supposed to
count?

3. Did you rehearse the counting task with him?
4. Did you reinforce him for his behavior?
5. Is the data collection task too complex or too difficult?

6. Should you try to get another data collector?

Ex-Contract

Kid

Parent

233

WEEK 7
CONTRACTING ROLE PLAY

Bring school work home daily
Do work daily

Turn.work in at school daily
Clean room daily

Lunch money
Weekly movie

Parents complain that the youth did not finish his work. Youth says he
was only supposed to do 15 minutes per day.

I.

II.

Discuss Problems of Above Contract

(Trouble Shooting Guide)

1.

2.

No direct exchanges - hard to determine what's earned

or not earned.

Not specific enough to be easily monitored--particularly in
positive.

When renegotiating-allow sufficient time, same procedures, all
parties learned from initial attempt.

Role Play Renegotation of Above Contract Including MOnitoring
Strategies

Ui-l-‘UNH

‘40‘

Specific feedback

Positive feedback

Mutually monitorable

Monitored immediately

Volunteer monitor at least every other day initially

in order to intercept minor problems early that might
lead to premature failure.

Get specific what happened when information

Negative feedback only when essential-~then only when in
conjunction with positive

Initial failure does not mean contracting doesn't workr-find out
why and fix it.

234
WEEK 7

ADVOCACY ROLE PLAY

Katie Kodak wants to take a photography class at school. She is serious
about photography as a hobby and possibly a career. However, her school
(a Lansing public school) does not allow students to take such electives
if they have not passed core courses (English and math) the preceding term.

Follow week 5 and 6 advocacy discussion and role play discussions, using
new categories of strategies.

23S
WEEK 7
mum QUESTIONS

1. What are the characteristics of a good monitoring system for a contract?

2. What are the rules governing an initiation of a secondary advocacy effort?

3. What are two common reasons for failure of contracts? What decision rules
would govern renegotiation of a contract?

236
WEEK 7

ORAL QUESTIONS

Describe the characteristics of your role during the monitoring phase.

What are 2 reasons why a sound monitoring system is important to a
behavioral intervention strategy?

What principles should you follow in providing feedback to each party in
the contract?

Discuss several methods of gathering information within the framework of
an advocacy monitoring framework.

What rules govern discrimination on the basis of sex? Give some examples
from.cases cited.

Discuss some critical components of contract renegotiation.

237

WEEK 8 _
ADOLESCENT PROJECT

I. Topic: Termination/Generalization/Overview
II. Assigned Readings (To be mastered by class time this week)
Levine, A. The rights of students, New York: Avon, 1973. Pp. 111-138.
III. Questions from Students (10 minutes)
IV. Written Questions (20 minutes)

V. Group Discussion Questions (30 minutes)
VI. Discuss Flow Chart
VII. Study notes (supplement to readings)

As outlined in the very first week of the semester, the goal of this project is
to keep the youth out of the juvenile justice system. Our means of accomplish-
ing that goal are to get the youth and the important people in his/her environ-
ment to use the methods of contractual agreements and advocacy as alternatives
to seeking formal societal means of control. The accomplishments that you are
able to make with the youth and their situations must act as the beginning of
changes in interpersonal strategy and in their mode of meeting their individual
needs. One problemwwhich any program of this type has is that the involvement
with the target population cannot last forever. Decisions to terminate at any
particular time point are merely arbitrary. In this project we have selected
eighteen weeks as the model intervention time period. Eighteen weeks allows
sufficient time to accomplish significant changes, allows a mutually visible
goal time period to work for, and has been shown to be short enough to avoid
undesired dependency.

During the last two weeks of the three-month intervention your primary focus
will be to teach the youth and significant others to use the methods of
negotiated interpersonal agreements and advocacy as strategies for goal attain-
semi and conflict resolution. The preparation of these people for your termina—
tion should include three components.

First, you will want to make it clear from the beginning that you are going to
be involved with a particular youth for an eighteen week time period. You.will
want to inform all parties of this fact beginning in the early part of your
involvement. This should help to clarify your role as a person who is going to
be involved in the explanation, execution, and instruction of alternative
methods for handling problem.areas. It will also make all parties aware that
there is an explicit target date for accomplishment of stated goals and gradual
transfer of primary responsibility back to those individuals in the natural
situation. As you near the end of the eighteen week time period, you will want
to begin more systematically informing the parties with which you have been
involved of the termination. This should generally be approached by inquiring
about or suggesting specific things to be accomplished prior to your termination
of involvement.

238
ADOLESCENT PROJECT

Second, you will want to intensify your instruction of the various persons in
carrying out the methods of negotiated interpersonal agreements and advocacy. In
some senses, throughout the intervention you will be teaching the youth and the
various significant others in the methods of behavioral contracting and advocacy.
This will be taking place through your instruction and example.

In the case of contracting, the initial and renegotiated contracts will in many
senses provide practice sessions for all concerned inhandling future situations
which may arise. However, you will want to spend the last two weeks of your
intervention specifically instructing all concerned in the methods and principles
which you have been utilizing in implementing the negotiated interpersonal
agreements. Essentially you.will want to provide them with the information and
principles that you have had at your disposal throughout the intervention. For
example, you will want to tell them in some detail about the phases of negotiated
interpersonal agreements, the basic principle of positive reciprocity, the hm-
portance of working on mutually monitorable events, the importance of specific
positive contingent feedback, rules for renegotiation of interpersonal agreements,
and using the information from successful and poorly executed contracts. In
short, you.will want to provide them a detailed alternative to turning to the
police or other formal agents of social control for conflict resolution.

In the case of advocacy, you will be instructing the youth and his natural
advocates (e.g., parents, friends) in the methods of advocacy from the beginning.
This will be taking place through your mutual discussion and the youth observing
your advocacy efforts. In addition, about half way through the eighteen week
intervention you will want to purposely have the youth accompany you when you
make the contacts with target individuals. It is important that he/she not only
be told about how to execute self-advocacy but that they actually gain first-hand
experience in pleading their own cases.

During the last two weeks of the eighteen week intervention, you will want to
place primary emphasis on training the youth to be his/her own advocate. Again,
you will want to provide them with all the information that you have been using.
For example, you.will want to tell them in detail about the phases of executing
an advocacy effort, their basic rights to the community's resources, the import-
ance of making an adequate assessment of their unmet need areas, the various
advocacy strategies available, the rules for selecting strategies, paying careful
attention to their effects of their self-advocacy efforts, the rules for supple-
mental advocacy, and how to use the information gained for future need fulfillment.
In short, you want the youth and significant others to have an alternative to
passive acceptance of unfulfilled needs.

A third, and critical component of the termination process will be to have the
parties involved actually practice each of the methods. Every party involved

in each interpersonal agreement should practice in your presence the contracting
process which you have been utilizing. In addition, the youth should actually
carry out an advocacy effort with you serving as ”coach". This will serve
several purposes. You will be able to observe their execution of each method
and allow you to provide feedback, both positive and negative, about their
performance. It will also provide additional cues that your involvement will be
ending and that they will be expected to carry out the process on their own for
future situations. They need to have the opportunity to try out the method on a
completely new situation without your direct involvement. For contracting, you
will want to help each dyad select either a contrived situation to "role play" or
a future situation which they expect will arise. For advocacy, you will want to

239
ADOLESCENT PROJECT

have your youth select an additional area of need which you have not worked on or
contrive a likely future situation which can be role played. You will then have
them go through the processes involved in each of these methods of intervention.

Ideally, this practice session would focus on an additional area of concern in
the youth's life which could provide the basis for actual use of the technique
in the time period immediately following your termination of involvement. It is
important that all concerned actually practice the method and gain the experience
of carrying such processes out on their own.

A final task you‘will be expected to accomplish in your relation to each case is
to prepare a final termination report. This report will incorporate the ongoing
information you have been compiling on the case in the weekly evaluation forms,
the log books, and the goal attainment. In general, the final termination report
should follow the format of the weekly evaluations you have been doing throughout.
It should include an expanded version of the following components.

Goals. What were you specifically working on with this youth and his/
her situation during your three-month involvement. This section would
include your original goals and any additional goals you identified
later.

Techniques. This section should detail exactly what you did and what
you tried to get others to do in order to accomplish the goals which
were identified above.

Evaluation. What is your assessment of the degree to which the goals
were accomplished and the techniques utilized helpful in attaining
those goals.

Recommendations. Any additional information which you think was
relevant to your work with the youth.

At this point the focus of the class is going to change. You may wish to refer
back to page three of this manual to re—read the paragraph describing the
structure of classes from now on. The criteria for grading will obviously also
change. There will be five components of your grade from now on. First and most
important is the responsibility you take with your youth. Second is your class
presentation of your case. Third, the contribution you make to the rest of class
discussion will be included in your grade. Fourth, your weekly progress reports

should.be on time and complete. Finally, your attendance at weekly classes is
very important.

VIII. General Principles from.this Week's Material

A. Purpose of the termination strategy.

3. Sequential components of the termination approach.
C. Contents of the termination report.

D. Strategies for maintaining change.

E. Rights of pregnant students to an education.
F. Confidentiality of school records.

G. Decisions related to school grades and records.

240
um: 8
WRITTEN QUESTIONS

1. What are the three sequential components of the termination process?

2. Name three points of the rationale for an 18 week intervention.

24]
WEEK 8

ORAL QUESTIONS

What is to be included in the termination report?

What are the five grading criteria for the remaining weeks of the course?

What are three ways in which the youth learns the methods of contracts
and advocacy?

What are some of the issues and problems involved with schools keeping
student records?

What are the arguments against bringing lawsuits to secure every right
currently denied to students?

242

The following points should be considered in using this flow'chart.

1. Several areas of the youth's life may need attention at any given point in time.
Intervention may be proceeding simultaneously at several different stages on
the chart.

2. .Assessment and monitoring of all areas of the youth‘s life should continue
regardless of what stage of intervention is occurring.

3° Certain phases of one strategy (advocacy or contracting) may be appropriate in
conjunction with the other.

a. While the process on the flow chart represents the most rational procedure,
in practice the arrows will point in both directions.

243

Overview of Intervention Rrocess

 

 

 

 

Assessment
(needs of youth, significant
others, resources possessed
and lacking for all areas)

 

 

 

  
   
     

  
 
 

Is
there an
area of concern,
issue, problem

 

 

Hake decision regarding
relative efficacy of contracting or sdvocsc
\- \

Contracting | Advocacy

Identify critical [Identify unmet megs]
people involved *—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\

resources potentii'I—Ia

 

{Introduce ap

   
  
 

enty

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r. o
w
Negotiate exchanges using ,_~ 3 Identify target individual
rules (monitorable, specific,“ 0“ ' cv
reciprocal) * a 3*- -- - -- --
sa 0 s
d ——
- - - - - - - - a": E. [ Deter-mine vulnerability I
as M _
Writs draft of contract for =_‘; 2‘ [Specify strategzl
consideration by class and u g o" - -4. a, - -
parties involved 0 3 U
3(— - ------ a, 5 : In lament strategy]
‘ J <_4 3 u a!
‘ Desigg monitoring svstem I ° '3 g
N ‘2 2a a:
I lbnitor behavior, use of 1‘, 3
contract, and use of 8' 3‘ YES
‘ monitoring system a:

 

 

\

Continue monitoring and
assessment of life systems-—
use advocacy and con-
tracting processss as

ed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lgeftrest to sp

 

Train- youth and others in [
intervention techniques

 

 

7

 

 

 

___-..

N
we parties practice I
techniques '

N .
Prepare for termination-
remind parties. write report) i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX H

SERIOUSNESS AND DISPOSITIONAL CODES
FOR ARCHIVAL COURT AND POLICE DATA

APPENDIX H
Seriousness and Dispositional Codes

for Archival Court and Police Data

 

Average Seriousness Weights for Police and Court Data1

l = status offenses (truancy, incorrigibility, runaway, minor in possession of
alcohol, curfew)

2 = minor property crimes (larceny, receiving and concealing, malicious destruc-
tion with damages under $50; trespassing, entering without permission; durg
offenses, eluding arrest)

3 = major property crimes (larceny, receiving and concealing, malicious destruc-
tion with damages over $50; breaking and entering [B & E], car theft [UDAA],
unarmed robbery, burglary) minor crimes against person (assault, etc., without
weapon and without injury)

4 = major person crimes (assault with weapon, rape, child molestation, armed
robbery, unarmed assault with injury)

Write the seriousness code beside each offense and circle the number. Average
the seriousness codes for all offenses whose commission dates fall within the
giver quarter. Record this average (rounded to two decimal places) in the
column headed "av. Ser." for each quarter.

 

Most Serious Disposition for Police Contacts

0 = none (no contacts)
l = warn and release
2 = petition

 

Most Serious Disposition for Court Petitions

none (no petitions)

petition denied/dismissed

referred to parents

consent probation (informal processing)
referred to community agency

referred to caseworker

formal probation

community residential placement

(foster home; group home)

institution

‘JCWU'l-DQJN—JO

CD
ll

 

l . .
Modified from Sellin and Wolfgang, l964.

244

APPENDIX I
SELF REPORT DELINQUENCY QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX I A
SELF REPORT IIIJNOUENCY (8RD)

HON OFTEN HAVE YOU:
POW! (HEN HAS YOUR SOVDALE'ITER: IN THE LAST
H04 (HEN HAS YOUR YOUTH: " th'EEKS YEAR

 

2085 SKIPPED CLASS WHEN YOU/HE/SHE WAS IN SCHOOL?

2086 GONE ONTO SOMEONE’S LAND WEN THEY DIDN'T WANT
YOU/HIM/HER To BE THERE, OR WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION?

2087 GONE INTO A HOUSE OR BUILDING WHEN YOU/HE/SHE
WASN’T SUPPOSED TO BE THERE?

2088 PLAYED ON A SCHOOL ATHLETIC TEAM?
2089 THREATENED TO HURT SOVEONE?

2090 BEEN TOLD To BRING YOUR/HIS/l-ER PARENTS To
SCHOOL FOR SOMETHING YDU/PE/Si-E DID WRONG?

2091 DAMAGED. 0R MESSED UP SOMETHING NOT BELONGING
T0 You/HIM/HER?

2092 HURT SOMEONE BADLY ENOUGH FOR HIM/HER T0 NEED
BANDAGES ‘OR A DOCTOR?

2093 GOlTEN ON THE l-DNOR ROLL FOR GOOD GRADES IN SCHOOL?
209A TAKENSONE PART OF A CAR OR SOME GASOLINE?

2095 HIT A NEMBER OF YDUR/HIS/HER FAMILY? (IN ANGER)
2095 HASNOTBEENAIiOWEDTOGOTOSCHOOLuvTILTHE

SUPERINTENDANT 0R PRINCIPAL TOLD YOU/HIM/HER THAT
YOU/HE/SHE COULD Go AGAIN? (BEEN SUSPENDED)

245

2097

2100
2101

2102

2103

2105
2106

2107

2108
2109
21.10

2111

246 IN. THE LAST

0 WEEKS
TAKEN SOMETHING NOT BELINGING To YOU/HIM/HER
WORTH LESS THAN $2.00?
EARNED SOME VDNEY AT A JOB?
DRUNK BEER OR LIQUOR? (INCLUDES SIPS)
RUN AWAY FROYI HOME?

SKIPPED A FULL DAY OF SCHOOL?

BEEN SENT TO THE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S OFFICE
FOR BAD BEHAVIOR IN CLASS?

CARRIED A GUN OR A KNIFE?
WORKED ON A SCHOOL NEWSPAPER OR YEARBOOK?

TAKEN SOMETHING NOT BELONGING TO YOU/HIM/HER
WORTH OVER $50.00?

DONE SOMETHING AROUND THE HOUSE OR FOR THE
FAMILY THAT REALLY PLEASED YOUR/HIS/HER FAMILY?

SET FIRE To SOMEONE ELSE’S PROPERTY?

USED 0R THREATENED TO USE A WEAPON TO GET
SOMETHING FROM A PERSON?

TAKEN SOMETHING FROM A STORE WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT?
(REGARDLESS OF PRICE)

SMOKED WITHOUT YOUR PARENTS/YOUR/HIS PARENTS
KNOWING ABOUT IT OR WITHOUT PERMISSION? (REGULAR CIGS.)

WORKED FREE FOR A CHARITY ORGANIZATION?

TAKEN A CAR WITHOUT THE OWNER’S PERMISSION? (INCLUDES
JOYRIDING)

YEAR

21.14

2116

21.18

247 IN THE LAST
MESS YEAR

SNOKED MARIJUANA?

TAKEN SOMETHING FROM A PERSON BY FORCE?
(MAY OR MAY NOT USE A WEAPON)

BEATEN UP ON SOMEBODY OR FOUGDHT SOMEONE (PHYSICALLY)?

TAKEN DRUGS OR PILLS; OTHER THAN MARIJUANA?

BOUGHT OR GOTTEN SOMETHING THAT WAS STOLEN BY
SOMEONE ELSE?

BROKEN INTO A PLACE AND STOLEN SOMETHING?

TAKEN THEINGS WORTH LESS THAN $50.00? (OVER 552(1))

 

 

APPENDIX J
LABEL SPREAD INSTRUCTION FORM

APPENDIX J

LABEL SPREAD INSTRUCTION FORM

INTERVIEUER: THE FOLLOWING FORM SHOULD BE COMPLETED BY BOTH THE YOUTH AND PARENT
SOURCES FOLLOWING THE 20 ITEH QUESTIONNAIRE. THE FIRST TWO COLUMNS HAY CALL FOR
MULTIPLE RESPONSES SHOULD THE YOUTH HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH. THE POLICE OR COURT
ON ADDITIONAL OCCASIONS SINCE THE INCIDENT THAT RESULTED IN REFERRAL TO THE PROJECT.
REFER To CONTACTS DETERMINED IN THE PREVIOUS QUESTIONNAIRE. USE MULTIPLE IIARRS
WITHIN THE APPROPRIATE BOX SHOULD THE NEED ARISE (e. g. 7777‘] ). BE CERTAIN ALL
MARKS ARE CLEARLY DISTINCUISHABLE. ._...__.._.-

For example: "Now I would like to know what people found out about your contacts
with the police and court. First I would like to know about your mother. Some
of the questions may seem obvious, but I need to know for sure. Did your mother
know about the contact with the police that got you in the project? Did she
know about the contact with the court? Does she know about your involvement

in the project?"

AT THIS POINT YOU SHOULD REPEAT THE FIRST TWO QUESTIONS FOR ANY ADDITIONAL CONTACTS
THAT YOU HAVE NOTED.

"Does your mother know about the other contact with the police you mentioned?
Did she know about the court contact?”

THESE MULTIPLE CONTACTS MAY RESULT IN MORE THAN ONE MARK IN A SINGLE BOX AS NOTED
ABOVE. NOW YOU SHOULD CONTINUE ACROSS THE FIRST ROW.

"Does your mother see you as someone who will do ok in life in things like
school, jobs, having a family, and so on...? Does your mother see you as
someone who will need help for personal problems? Does your mother see you
as someone who will do something that will get you into trouble? How
important to you is what this person thinks of you?"

IF THERE IS A STEPMOTHER, REPEAT THE SET FOR THAT SOURCE. IF NOT, MOVE ON TO THE
FATHER. PROCEED THROUGH THE REST OF THE LIST IN A SIMILAR FASHION. IT MAY BE
.APPROPRIATE T0 SKIP THE STEPFATHER.AND GUARDIAN AS WELL.

 

DURING THE PARENT INTERVIEW, REWORD SOURCE REFERENCE AND QUESTIONS SUCH THAT THEY
WILL REFER TO THE SAME PERSON.

For example: IF YOU ARE INTERVIEWING THE MOTHER REFER TO CONTACTS YOU' VE
LEARNED OF .FROM THE MOTHER, NOT FROM THE YOUTH. 'Are you aware of the contact
with the police that led to your (son7daughter) involvement in the project?
Are you aware of the contact with the court?", etc.

248

APPENDIX K
LABEL SPREAD ANSWER SHEET

APPENDIX K

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Fmom spoo>
.ooom .omom .Peom .Nmom .mmom rosette moo_oa
.mmom .moom .owom Hemom .Nmom cw so» ooceou oz: comeom
a
.omom .oeom .amom .omom SeNom mess; emz
mgomgmpc . uow
.Amom .Aeom .omom .mmom .omom o o . ease mew; A
oo o o who u
.omom .oaom .umom .omom .m_om _ c m o e 0
cm: mm
.mmom .maom .omom .Nwom .opom e . a a m
x P o o mo
.emom .seom .mmom .emom .R_om _.s a e o a
.mmom .maom .emom .mmom .opom Loeomeamom\tmeomn
to oEoo o .
.Nmom .Neom .mmom .smOm .m_om so om\t coo:
on Ape «we. Roe A_v Ame AoV Rev NM
m" m. m. m. a” mo M. m. M. mu mm mm mm m" w" m" w" w" a"
1mUWJ IJOUOI: 1.5 1.5 1.5
e m I” m .A . m. I” A. . s s s
1U. Uul. U A n n n
Douflbcw OUufinAa J J J
Pfiled 1.0U35 3 a a
u m...o Ims
m w u
l...l.. d
mm 0
dd J
00 .
u u
m a m m P m o m N P Poeeoeoe powwoto mocwm
mopnooeo Auoopcoo muoopcoo mowpoo eo A
ope? :ox pom Apoooooo Loom zoom Loev mooo
PPR: pogo mewso wuoonoeo Lowv Natooo woow_oo .1
ago» to Alsace -mEom oe _eez weep cw acme ago got; was ELL: morsom
comeoo mes» was; on; ocoosom uo>Po>ce Loo» pompcoo Loo» uoopcoo Loo» o>o
so» op we me we so» mow pooom zocx poooo zocx poomo 3ocx 3
ocoucooew 3o: ooeoom on» moon ooeoom mooo woeoom oeo ooeoom own a mmoo

 

 

 

 

Hum2m mm3m2< o<mmom 4mm<4

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX L
INTERVENTION OPINIONS

APPENDIX L
Student Number

INTERVENTION OPINIONS

Choose the answer to each question which is most appropriate and write the letter
cfi'your choice in the space at the left. ONLY ONE ANSWER SHOULD BE MARKED.

1.

3.

Which of the following is a rationale for an l8~week intervention?

a. It is the length of time several authors have recommended in order to
establish a behavioral contract.

b. While not enough time for actual changes to occur, it is a sufficient
instruction period.

c. It is a visible time period for which all involved can set goals.

d. Both the student and family involved often lose interest after four or
five months.

Which of the following is a valid criticism of the' Sick Parents Theory“
of delinquency?

a. The theory is illogical.

b. The theOry has no empirical support.

c. Role models are unrelated to delinquency.

d. The implications of the theory for treatment are unsatisfactory.

Which of the following is a shortcoming of the medical model of human

behavior?

a. The labels of the medical model usually gloss over psychodynamic
problems.

b. Prescribed drugs often will not change asocial behavior.

c. Viewing asocial human behavior as an illness is frequently inappro-
priate.

d The trend toward nonprofessionals in medical roles has helped make
professionals less accessible.

Which.of the following is an interpersonal explanation of delinquency?
a. Delinquency is a product of discriminatory social conditions.

b. Delinquency stems from disturbed interactional patterns.

c. Delinquency is caused by a lack of social interactions.

d. Delinquency is a symptom of historical personality defects.

Which of the following is a general rule to consider when negotiating a
contract?

a. Behaviors should be in terms of both positives and negatives.

b. Behaviors should be monitorable.

c. Behaviors should be as general as possible.

d. Behaviors should be relatively unimportant to those involved.

which of the following is a characteristic of a good monitoring system?
a. It has a built-in incentive for monitoring.

b. It should be done easily long after the performance.

c. It describes backsliding and mistakes clearly.

'd. The parents are the principal monitoring agent.

Which of the following is not a characteristic of the families of
delinquents? .

a. Families model and attend to delinquent actions.

b. Interactions in families are governed by aversive controls.

c. Parents of delinquents are too lenient. ’ "

d. Families fail to attend to prosocial performance.

9R0

10.

11.

12.

13.

251
Student Number

 

What was the major outcome of the Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent
School District Decision?

a. All students have a right to a free education.

b. All students have a right to a hearing if suspended.

c. All students have a right to peacefully express their views.

d. All students have a right to a quality education.

which of the following is an environmental resources explanation of

delinquency?

a. Delinquency is an acting out of infantile rage at an ungiving environ-
ment.

b. Delinquency is caused by unfulfilled personal and material needs.

c. Delinquency is caused by broken homes.

d. Delinquency is caused by significant others' attention to negative
actions.

Which of the following defines the Premack principle?

a. Observing and recording data may by itself cause a change in the
observed behaviors.

b. High frequency activities can be used to reinforce low frequency
activities.

c. If a behavior is not monitorable by both parties, it cannot be dealt
with in a contract. ‘

d. Identify target areas of unmet needs rather than merely stopping areas
of hassles.

which of the following will not help to make meetings with the family
to discuss desired changes more effective?

a. Help clarify messages.

b. Help focus on positive changes.

c. Make sure people speak in specific terms.

d. Make sure the entire history of the problem. is understood.

Which of the following are you looking for during the assessment period
with a youth?

a. Precipitating action for youth's referral to the project.

b. Unchangeable interpersonal contingencies.

c. Psychological flaws which should be dealt with by professionals.

d. Significant others in the youth's life.

Which is the cardinal rule of child advocacy?

a. Phrase everything in terms of specific behaviors.
b. Don't put either party in double jeopardy.

c. Remain as unobtrusive as possible.

d. Identify unmet needs as well as areas of hassle.

14. Which of the following is a fatal flaw of the victim-blaming approach?

900’”

15.

. Victims blame their environment.

It is universalistic rather than exceptionalistic.
. It ignores human rights.

. Victims are dealt with in a value-free manner.

Which of the following is a way of clarifying a speaker's statement?
. Relating a similar experience of your own.

. Giving feedback on the statement.

. Paraphrasing the statement.

. Making a judgment on the validity of the statement.

D-OU‘OD

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

252
Student Number

Which of the-following is a reason for employing a multiple strategy

approach in working with delinquents?

a. It allows for individualized action plans.

b. Neither strategy proved effective alone in the Illinois project.

c. It fits in most easily with the instability of delinquence.

d. Delinquents' problems are so deeply seated, no one strategy is
sufficient. ,

Which of the following is true?

a. A principal does not have the right to search desks and lockers.

b. In most states. the search of a person on school grounds is illegal
without a warrant.

c. Students may not express their political views while on school grounds.

d. If questioned, a student has the right to remain silent.

Which of the following is an operant explanation of an interpersonal

process leading to delinquency?

a. Families attend only to prosocial performance of the youth.

b. Delinquency behavior results from an unbalance between unconscious
and conscious self-concept.

c. Familes model and reinforce delinquent actions for the youth.

d. Delinquent behavior is inherently pathological.

Suppose you felt a behavioral contract was an appropriate method of

handling a family problem. However, the father is reluctant because he

is opposed to bribing his son to behave well. What would you do?

a. Explain that all behavior is controlled by its consequences.

b. Explore the possibility of alternative techniques with the family.

c. Explain that bribery has been shown to be an effective way of changing
an adolescent's behavior.

d. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of bribery with the father.

Which of the following describes the positive approach to advocacy?

a. You attempt to convince the target of your advocacy to provide for
the needs of your youth.

b. You are very aggressive with the target of your advocacy.

c. You approach several likely resources with your concern.

d. You have the news media publish an article attacking the target of
your advocacy.

Which of_the following is information you need to do an advocacy inter-
vention strategy?

a. Location of potential resources.

b. Names of natural mediators.

c. Samples of youth's record.

d. Youth's psychological profile.

Which of the following measures were used to evaluate the Illinois

_ project?

a. Financial records.
b. School records.

c. Projective tests.
d. Vocational tests.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

253

Student Number

 

(

What is the chief advantage of a token system? _

a. They lend to the modification of less monitorable behaviors.

b. You don’t need to know the effective reinforcers operating at any one
time.

c. They employ the norms of reciprocity.

d. They are easier to develop and use than other contracts.

Which of the following is a guideline for providing feedback to parties
involved in a contract?

a. Feedback should be as general as possible.

b. Meet with parties 'separately if negative feedback must be given.

c. Negative feedback should include alternatives for the parties.

d. Negative feedback should be given first so it will be heard.

What is an important rule in choosing a reinforcer for the youth in a

contract.

a. It should be chosen by the parents and volunteer.

b. It should be totally unavailable to the youth through other means.

c. It should be able to be presented to the youth within one day of the
behavior to be reinforced.

d. It should be important to the youth.

Which process can lead to initiation and maintenance of a human behavior?
a. Demonstrate the behavior.

b. Remove a plesant stimulus following the behavior.

c. Stop reinforcement following the behavior.

d. Introduce an aversive stimulus following the behavior.

Which of the following is a rule to use in renegotiating a contract?

a. The contract renegotiation should follow the same procedures as the
negotiation of the initial agreement.

b. The renegotiation should not be biased by any information obtained

from executing the initial agreement.
c. Do not begin renegotiations unless both parties are dissatisfied

with the contract.

d. Don't begin renegotiations until after at least three to four days of
implementing the initial agreement.

Which of the following is a rule governing an initiation of a secondary

advocacy effort?

a. Remain as unobtrusive as possible in your role as an advocate.

b. Discontinue effort when the agency says everything is all right.

c. Allow two weeks for the initial strategy to produce results.

d. Use your monitoring strategy to discern effectiveness of the initial
strategy.

Which of the following should not be included in the termination report?
a. A complete description of the youth's personality.

b. Goals for your intervention.

c. Techniques used in your intervention.

d. Recommendations.

254 Student Number

 

30. Which of the following is a principle governing the implementation of an
advocacy approach?
a. Threaten with negative consequences initially to gain respect.
b. Don't jeopardize the credibility of yourself or the youth.
c. Be aware of the youth's style so as to gain system entry easily.
d. Present the youth in such a light so as to gain sympathy.

31. Which of the following is a characteristic of the behavioral perspective
of delinquency?
a. The individual is the source of the problem.
b. The individual is the focus of change.
c. The pathology iszastable component of the individual personality.

d. It requires minimal use of professionals to employ intervention
techniques.

APPENDIX M
COURSE EVALUATION

APPENDIX M
ADOLESCENT DIVERSION PROJECT
Training Data

Code

Course Evaluation Mechanics

In the following questions, circle the number on each scale which best represents
where you believe you fall.

1. Knowing what you know now about this course, would you take it again?

1 2 3 6 5
definitely not definitely yes
2. Would you recommend this course to a friend?
1 2 3 A 5
definitely yes definitely not
3. How relevant is this course to your career goals?
1 2 3 4 5
very irrelevant very relevant

6. How completely did this course meet your initial expectations of it?

1 2 3 4 - 5
met all met no
expectations expectations

5. How much do you believe you've learned from.this course?
1 2 3 4 5
I learned nothing ‘ I learned
a huge amount

6. Compared to other courses you've taken at MSU, how much do you believe
you've learned?

1 2 3 4 5
the least of any the most of any course
course

7. How useful do you believe this course will be to you in future courses?
1 2 3 ‘ 6 5
very useful very useless

8. How does your past coursework relate to the information and skills
presented in this course?
1 2 3 4 5
very irrelevant very relevant

9. How do you believe this course will affect your chances of getting a job
in your field?
1 2 3 4 5
‘won't help at all extremely helpful

10. How do you believe this course will affect your chances of being accepted
into graduate school? (Assume you would like to be accepted.)
1 2 3 A 5
‘won't help at all extremely helpful

II.

12.

13.

14.

15.

l6.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

256

How do you feel about the model of intervention that you were trained in?

1 2 3 4 5
liked very much extremely disliked
How do you feel about the amount of training you have received?

1 2 3 4 5

extremely extremely

inappropriate appropriate
How do you feel about the way in which the training was presented?

1 2 3 4 S
liked very much extremely disliked

How much do you talk with friends not in this class about the training
and skills you have received?
1 2 3. 4 5
never very frequently

Outside of this class, how much do you talk with other students in this
class about the training and skills you have received?
1 2 3 4 5
never very frequently

If you have a case already assigned, how frequently do you talk with
friends not in this class about problems, concerns.and issues dealing
with your case? (We are not referring to any breach of confidentiality.)
1 2 3 4 5 ‘.
never very frequently

If you have a case assigned, how frequently do you talk outside of class
with other students in your class about problems, concerns and issues
dealing with your case?
1 2 3 4 5
never very frequently

How much do you like the grading scheme of this course?

1 2 3. 4 5
dislike very much like very much
If already assigned, how much do you like the class discussion of your case?
like veiy much 2 3 4 dislikesvery much
If already assigned, how useful to you is the class discussion of your case?
completely useless 2 3 A very :seful

How much do you like the class discussions of other students' cases?
1 2 3 4 5
dislike very much like very much

How'useful to you is the class discussion of others' cases?
1 2 3 4 5
Completely useless very useful

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

257

How much do you like the role plays done in class?

1 2 3 4 5
like very much dislike very much
How useful to you are the role plays done in class?

1 2 3 4 5
completely useless very useful

How much do you like the manual used in this course?

1 2 3 4 5
like very much dislike very much
How useful to you is the manual?'

1 2 3 4 5
completely useless very useful
How much did you like the outside readings required in this course?

1 2 3 4 5
disliked very much liked very much
How useful to you are the outside readings required in this course?

1 2 3 4 5
completely useless very useful

How much did you like the format of answering oral questions in small groups?

1 2 3 4 5

liked very much disliked very much

How useful to you was the format of answering oral questions in small groups?
1 2 3 4 5

completely useless ' very useful

How much did you like the format of answering written questions in large

groups?

1 2 3 4 5
disliked very much liked very much
How useful to you was the format of answering written questions in large
groups?

1 2 3, 4 5
very useful completely useless
How much did you like the format of rewriting questions you had answered
incorrectly?

1 2 3 4 5
liked very much disliked very much
How useful to you was the format of rewriting questions you had answered
incorrectly?

l 2 3 4 5
very useful completely useless

How much did you like the outside speakers (court and police staff)?
1 2 3 4 5
disliked very much liked very much

How useful to you were the outside speakers?
1 2 3 4 5

APPENDIX N
DELINQUENCY ORIENTATION SCALE

APPENDIX N Code

DELINQUENCY ORIENTATION SCALE

The following statements present a wide range of opinions regarding
the causes and treatment of juvenile delinquency, as well as the
role of the juvenile justice system. Please indicate the extent

to which you agree or disagree with each by circling the
appropriate number.

 

Juveniles would be better off if they were not officially handled by any

agency. . a .

l 2 3 4 5
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly
disagree agree

Delinquents should be prosecuted fully. . . .

1 2 3 4 ' 5
strongly agree neutral disagree strongly
agree disagree

we have every right to force our youth to follow laws set down for them
by legislation. . . .

l 2 ' 3 4 5
strongly agree neutral " disagree strongly
agree " disagree

Increasing individual therapy will lessen delinquency. . . .

l 2 3 4 . 5
strongly agree neutral disagree strOngly
agree ‘ disagree

A basic disturbance in the process of socialization of the individual
causes delinquency. . . .

l 2 3 4 5
strongly agree neutral disagree strongly
agree disagree

Giving adults within the community more control and power will have a
direct effect on delinquency rates. .

l 2 3 4 5
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly
disagree agree

Individual service should be provided for those youth identified as
predelinquent. . . .

l 2 3 4 5
strongly agree neutral disagree strongly
agree disagree

10.

ll.

12.

a)
I

-0

14.

15.

16.

259

There is no such thing as a delinquent. . .
l 2 3 4 5
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly
disagree agree

It is possible to spot "predelinquents" before they get into serious
trOuble. . . .

l 2 3 4 5
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly
disagree agree

The societal factor of racism is the most critical variable underlying
delinquency. . . .

l 2 3 4 5
strongly agree neutral disagree strongly
agree disagree

Providing more counselors will aid greatly in decreasing delinquency
problems. . . .

l 2 3 a 5
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly
disagree agree

The juvenile court strips the youth of his identity. . . .

1 2 ‘ 3 a 5
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly
disagree agree

The juvenile court is generally too lenient with delinquents. . . .

l 2 3 4 5
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly
disagree agree

The best way to prevent delinquency is to identify predelinquents early.

1 ' 2 3 4 5
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly
disagree agree

The search for the cause of crime is useless since everybody at times is
criminal but only certain people happen to come to the attention of
officials. . . .

l 2 3 4 5
strongly agree neutral disagree strongly
agree ' disagree

One must be strict when dealing with a delinquent youth.

1 2 3 6 5
strongly agree neutral disagree strongly
agree disagree

17.

18.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

260

It should no longer be illegal to run away or skip school. . . .

l 2 3 4 5
strongly agree neutral disagree strongly
agree disagree

Lessening discriminations and inequality will lessen delinquency. . . .

l 2 3 4 5
strongly agree neutral disagree strongly
agree disagree

By separating the delinquent youth from the rest of the community reform
will be made easier. . . .

l 2 3 4 5
strongly agree neutral disagree strongly
agree disagree

Immediate punishment will reduce delinquent behavior. . . .

l 2 3 4 5
strongly agree neutral disagree strongly
agree disagree

Making a youthful offender of the law go through juvenile court proceedings
can only cause more problems in the future for the youth. . ..

1 - 2 3 4 5
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly
disagree agree

Redistributing the wealth in our society so that all individuals receive
equal wages will reduce delinquency. . . .

1 2 3 4 5
strongly agree neutral disagree strongly
agree disagree

Juveniles are best served if they are diverted totally from the court.

1 2 3 4 5
strongly agree neutral disagree strongly
agree disagree

The best way to prevent delinquency is to bring about changes in the
economic structure of society. .

1 2 3 4 5
strongly agree neutral disagree strongly
agree disagree

It is of primary importance that the juvenile court limit its activities
to criminal acts only. .

l 2 3 4 5
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly
disagree agree

26..

27.

28.

29.

3o.

31.

32.

33.

34.

26]

Prevention of delinquency should be based on psychological principles. . . .

l 2 3 4 5
strongly agree neutral disagree strongly
agree disagree

If police arrested more youth, there would be less delinquency. . . .

l 2 3 4 5
strongly agree neutral disagree strongly
agree disagree

Delinquency causing factors are not under the control of the youth. . .

1 2 3 4 5
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly
disagree agree

Police should release fewer of the kids they arrest. . . .

l 2 3 4 5
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly
disagree agree

Programs utilizing the fisoft" approach will not remove delinquency. . .

l 2 ' 3 4 5
strongly agree neutral disagree strongly
agree disagree

The organizational structure of the police department determines who
becomes a delinquent. . . .

1 2 3 4 5
strongly agree neutral disagree strongly
agree . disagree

In dealing with delinquency one should aim at changing groups and
neighborhoods not individual youngsters. . . .

l 2 3 4 5
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly
disagree agree

To prevent delinquency it is necessary to make it known that the offender
will receive complete punishment for his act. . . .

l 2 3 4 5
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly
disagree agree

The most beneficial approach to the delinquency problem is to improve
the quality of counseling. . .

l 2 3 4 S .
strongly. disagree neutral ' agree strongly
disagree agree

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

262

Factors giving rise to delinquent behavior are found in external social
and economic conditions rather than within the personalities of certain
individuals. . . .

l 2 3 4 5
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly
disagree agree

Schools are the best agents to identify potential delinquents. . . .

l 2 3 4 5
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly
disagree agree

An investigation into the cause of delinquent behavior should involve
a look at societal rather than psychological factors. . . .

1 2 3 4 5
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly
disagree agree

Poverty causes delinquency. . . .

l 2 3 4 5
strongly agree neutral disagree strongly
agree disagree

Courts must see to it that delinquents are adequately punished. . . .

1 2 3 4 5
strongly agree neutral disagree strongly
agree - disagree

Special counseling programs should be provided for the youth who engage
in delinquent activities. . . .

1 2 3 4 5
strongly agree neutral disagree strongly
agree disagree

The most important causes of delinquency are to be found outside of
the individual. . . .

l 2 3 4 5
strongly disagree neutral agree strongly
disagree agree

REFERENCES

Albee, G. w. Conceptual models and manpower requirements in psychology.
American Psychologist, l968, 23, 317-320.

 

Alexander, J. F. Defensive and supportive communications in normal and
deviant families. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-
.ggy, l973, 39, 223.

 

Alexander, J. F. Behavior modification and delinquent youth. In R. E.
Hardy and J. L. Cull (Eds.), Behavior modification in rehabili-

 

tation settings. Springfield, IL: Thomas, 1974.

 

Alexander, J. F., & Parsons, B. V. Short term behavioral intervention
with delinquent families: Impact on family process and
recidivism. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1973, gflg 2l9-225.

 

Azrin, N. H., Naster, B. J., & Jones, R. Reciprocity counseling: A
rapid learning-based procedure for marital counseling.
Behavior Research and Therapy, l973, 11, 365—382.

 

Baer, D. M. Methods for generalizing experimentally produced behavior
changes. Paper presented at the Fifth Annual Southern cali-
fornia Conference on Behavior Modification, Los Angeles,
October 28, 1973.

 

Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. Some current dimensions of
applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 1968, l) 9l-97.

 

Bandura, A. Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston, l969.

 

Becker, J. S. Outsiders. New York: Free Press, 1963.

Binder, A., Monahan, J., & Newkirk, M. Diversion from the juvenile
justice system and the prevention of delinquency. In J. Mona—
han (Ed.), Community mental health and the criminal justice
system. New York: Pergamon Press, 1976. '

Blakely, C. H., Kushler, M. 6., Parisian, J. A., & Davidson, u. 5. Self-
reported delinquency as an evaluation measure: Comparative
reliability and validity of alternative weighting schemes.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, l980.

 

263

264

Burchard, J. D., & Hanig, P. T. Behavior modification and juvenile
delinquency. In Leitenberg, H. (Ed.), Handbook of behavior
modification and behavior therapy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
PrenticeAHall, Inc., 1976.

 

 

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. J. Convergent and discriminant validation
by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin,
1959, §§, 8l-105.

 

Carter, R. M. & Klein, M. W. (Eds.) Back on the street: The diversion
of juvenile offenders. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
1976.

 

 

Charters, W. W. & Jones, J. E. On the risks of appraising non-events in
program evaluation. Educational Researcher, 1973, 2111), 5-7.

 

Cloward, R. A., & Ohlin, L. E. Delinguencygand opportunity: A theory of
delinquent gangs. New York: Free Press, 1960.

 

Collingswood, T. R., Douds, A., & Williams, H. The Dallas Police Diver-
sion Project. Exemplary Project Report: U. S. Department of
Justice, l976.

 

Cowen, E. L., Zax, M., & Laird, J. D. A college student volunteer pro-
gram in the elementary school setting. Communitnyental Health
Journal, 1966, g, 319-328.

Cressey, D. R., & McDermott, R. A. Diversion from thegjuvenilegjustice
system. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office,
1973.

Davidson, W. S. The diversion of juvenile delinquents: An examination
of the process and relative efficacy of child advocacy and
behavioral contracting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Illinois, 1976.

Davidson, W. S. Volunteers and the diversion of juvenile offenders.
Grant submitted to and funded by the National Institute of
Mental Health, 1978.

Davidson, W. S., Koch, J. R., Lewis, R. G., & Wresinski, M. D. Model
evaluation strategies in criminal justice: The ideals and
the reality. New York: Pergamon Press, in press.

 

 

Davidson, W. 5., & Rapp, C. Child advocacy in the justice system.
Social Work, l976. 21, 225-232.

 

Davidson, W. 5., & Robinson, M. J. Community psychology and behavior
modification: A community based program for the prevention of
delinquency. Correctional Psychiatry and Social Psychiatry,
1975, 21, l-l2.

265

Davidson, W. S., & Seidman, E. S. Studies of behavior modification and
juvenile delinquency: A review, methodological critique, and
social perspective. ngchological Bulletin, 1974, 21, 998-1011.

 

Davidson, W. S., Seidman, E., Rappaport, J., Berck, P. L., Rapp, N. A.,
Rhodes, W., & Herring, J. Diversion programsfor juvenile
offenders. Social Work Research and Abstracts, 1977, 1, 40-54.

 

Davidson, W. S., & Rappaport, J. Toward a model for advocacy: Values,
roles and conceptions from community psychology. In G. Weber
and G. McCall (Eds.), Advocacy in the disciplines. New York:
Russell Sage, 1977.

 

DeRici, W., & Butz, G. Writing behavioral contracts. Champaign, IL:
Research Press, 1975.

 

Durlak, J. A. Comparative effectiveness of paraprofessional and profes-
sional helpers. Psychological Bulletin, 1979, 26, 80-92.

 

Elliott, D. S. Diversion: A study of alternative processing practices.
Final report to the Center for Studies of crime and Delinquency,
NIMH. Boulder, CO: Behavioral Research Institute, 1978.

 

Emshoff, J. G. The diversion of juvenile delinquents: A comparison of
intervention within the family and intervention with all life
systems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1980.

Emshoff, J. G., Davidson, W. S., Schmitt, N., & Leedom, N. Salient
processes in the implementation of social technology. Grant
proposal funded by the National Science Foundation, 1980

Emshoff, J. G., Jeppesen, J. C., Blakely, C. H., & Kushler, M. G.
Discrepancies in diversion research: Some possible explana-
tions. Paper presented at the 87th annual convention of the
American Psychological Association, New York, New York, 1979.

Erickson, K. T. Notes on the sociology of deviance. Social Problems,
1962, g, 308.

Erickson, M. L. Group violations, socio-economic status, and official
delinquency. Social Forces, 1973, g2, 41-52.

 

Erickson, M. L., & Empey, L. T. Court records, undetected delinquency,
and decision making. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology,
and Police Science, 1963, §4, 456-469.

 

Fairweather, G. W. Methods for experimental social innovations. New
York: Wiley, 1967.

Fairweather, G. W., Sanders, D. H., & Tornatzky, L. G. Creating change
in mental health organizations. New York: Pergamon, 1974.

 

266
/'Farrington, D. Self-reports of deviant behavior: Predictive and stable?
Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science,
1973, pg, 99-110.
Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 1428-1458 (1967).

Gibbons, D.C. & Jones, J.F. The study of deviance: Perspectives and
problems. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975.

Glueck, S. & Glueck, E. One thousand juvenile delinquents. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1934.

Glueck, S. & Blueck, E. Unraveling juvenile delinquengy. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1951.

Gold, M. Undetected delinquent behavior. Journal of Research on
Crime and Delinquency, 1966, 12, 127-143.

 

Gold, M. Delinquent behavior in American cities. Belmont, CA:
Brooks-Cole, 1970.

 

Gold, M. & Mann, 0. Delinquency as defense. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 1972, 42, 463-479.

 

 

Goldenberg, 1.1. Build me a mountain: Youth, poverty and the creation
of new settings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971.

 

Gruver, C.G. College students as therapeutic agents. Psychological
Bulletin, 1971, 26, 111-127.

 

Hirschi, T. Causes of delinquency. Los Angeles: University of
Los Angeles Press, 1969.

 

Huck, S.W. & McLean, R.A. Using a repeated measures ANOVA to analyze
the data from a pretest-posttest design: A potentially
confusing task. ngchological Bulletin, 1975, 82, 511-518.

 

Jackson, D.N. The personality research form. Palo Alto: Research
Psychologists Press, 1968.

Jackson, D.N. A sequential system for personality scale development.
In C. Spielberger (Ed.), Current topics in clinical and
community psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press,
1970.

 

 

Kaiser, H.F. & Caffry, J. Alpha factor analysis. Psychometrika,
1965, _3._09 1'14.

 

Kantrowitz, R.E. Training professionals to work with delinquents:
Differential impact of varying training/supervision/
intervention strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1979.

267

Kent vs. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 556 (1966).

 

Klein, M.W. The knowns and unknowns of diversion research. Paper
presented at the 87th annual convention of the American
Psychological Association, New York, New York, 1979.

Klein, M.W. Street gangs and street workers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1971.

Klein, M.W., Teilmann, K.S., Lincoln, S.B. & Labin, S. Diversion as
operationalization of labeling theory. Final report to the
Center for Studies in Crime and Delinquency, N.I.M.H.
Los Angeles: Social Science Research Institute, 1978.

Krisberg, B. & Austin, J. Children of Ishmael. Palo Alto, CA:
Mayfield Publishing Co., 1978.

 

Krohn, M., Waldo, G., & Chiricos, T.G. Self-reported delinquency: A
comparison of structured interviews and self-administered
checklists. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1975,
pg, 545-553.

Lawrence, J.A. Delinquency orientation: Creation of a measure.
Unpublished senior thesis, Michigan State University, 1979.

Lee, R.J. Volunteer case aide program: A community responds. Crime
and Delinquency, 1968, 14, 331-335.

 

Lemert, E.M. Social Pathology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1951.

 

Lemert, E.M. Instead of court: Diversion of juvenile justice.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971.

Lemert, E.M. Beyond Mead: The societal reaction to deviance. Social
Problems, 1974, 21, 85-95.

Lewis, R.G. & Davidson, W.S. Model evaluation project: Youth service
bureaus in Michigan. Lansing, MI: Office of Criminal
Justice Programs, 1977.

Lincoln, S.B., Teilman, K.S., Klein, M.W. & Labin, S. Recidivism
rates of diverted juvenile offenders. Paper presented at the
National Conference on Criminal Justice Evaluation, Washington,
D.C., 1977.

Logan, D.A. Community-based treatment for juveniles using volunteers.
Corrective Psychiatry and Journal of Social Therapy, 1972,
18’ 26-300

McCord, J. Effects of clients age, sex of counselor, and rapport on the
impact of treatment: A thirty-year followup. Paper presented
at the American Association of Psychiatric Services for Children.
Washington, D.C.: 1977.

'9551 ‘ufitedweug-euequn

19 slouillx JO Kigsuanlun ‘saiuiunog pazgleguisnpul u; Koglod

oglqnd uo ueulwas Kueugldiostpuaiu1 aui is paiuasaud Jaded
°saioilod oglqnd [egoos [nlasn lo iuawdoLaAap aui piano: sdais '3 ‘uewpgas

 

'5g5l‘lleH-aogiuaud :xaol MaN °aoueluen go sisxleue aul 'H ‘ajlauos

'll6l
‘aoilgo Buiiugud quawuaanog 'g°n :‘3'0 ‘uoifiuiusem 'aoiisnf
aliuannf u; suaaiunlon °p°w ‘Kauoqew g ‘°3'g ‘uasuap ‘°w'1 ‘ZlJPMUOS

 

 

'09-9v ‘EE ‘ll6l ‘uolleqoud [elapag 'SSBDOJd
[QUOLJDSJJOD aui u; mesa V :sleuoissaloud pue suaaiunloA 'W’I ‘ziaemuog

'szsl ‘Kallm :XJOA MaN
'aouelnap ,0 fiuilaqel 3H1 ‘('p3) aAog ’U'M u; 'siuawwog 'N'g ‘JHUDS

 

‘££6l ‘llPH-PGLlUBJd i'P'N ‘SJJLLJ P00M315U3 'WGLQOJa
Kauanbullap aui fiuixuiuiaa :uoliuanuaqul-uou [eolpea 'w°3 ‘JOUDS

 

 

 

“[161 ‘3591ULA 3140A MaN 'wl13l4 aui SULNPIB “M ‘uefia

'V98-C98

‘5 ‘6961 ‘uogiuaAuog [eoifiolouofisd ueoguawv lo sfiuipaaooud

°sa;1;3 cm; go 3191 V :uolieqoud u; uoliedioliued Kaiunwwog
'2') ‘sinouuaa1 y ‘°u ‘xouy "l‘le;1uosey "p ‘lassila "9 ‘wnequasog'

'696l ‘UolsulM B
lJQanLH ‘lLOH :xJoA MaN 'Siuafiv oginadeuauioqoflsd ‘('p3)
Kauuang '3 U} 'suaaiunlon iuapnis lo asn olinadelaui aul 'H ‘ziuauulaa

'1151 ‘aolisnp [PULwLJQ u; sisgfiblouofisd uo 33403
xsel VdV so; pauedaud Jaded °ssausnouafiuep JO uotiolpaud
BHl :6ugllaq pue 6uimouy 'p ‘Lagweq g ‘°3 ‘uewpgas ‘°p ‘3Jodeddeg

‘6l6l ‘sseg-Kessop :Vg

‘oosloueaj ues '55ugiias [iiunwwog u; usuaasaa [93;60[ouoflsd

PUP [PLDOS ’O‘P ‘Kllax B 'd'l ‘UBPMOUS "d'8 ‘ZOUDW uI

°waisKs [2631 841 woa; siuaosalope iqugp 01 ioafoud usaeasau

e lo Kuoisgu [eunieu 3M1 :UOlldOPQ ans: SHSJBA isalguew pue
uoueasau uogieuisuomaa 'S'M ‘uosijeg g ‘°3 ‘uewpgag "p ‘1Jodeddeg

 

‘ll6l "H'W'I’N 01 Palllqus UOIlPDLdeP 1UPJD ’S1oaf04d
BDLAJBS 011930 [equam u; siuapnis afiallog '3 ‘uemplas g ‘:p ‘1JOdedPH

. 'lz6l ‘ssaud alwapeov :xuol maN
°uogqniiisul leiuaw e u; siuapnis 3631103 :siuaiied oguouuo
fiutdtau u; suoiisAoqu '1'3 ‘uamog g 'w°p ‘Kasuiuj ‘°p ‘1Jodeddeu

°£l6l ‘UOlSUlM B 14948018 ‘1LOH 1140A MaN
~uoiqoe pus ‘uoueasaa ‘sanleA :Kfiolouoxsd Kiiunwwog 'p ‘1Jodeddea

892

‘aa;;;0 SULlUIJd quawuuanog '5'n :‘g'g ‘uoqfiuiusem 'awtuo
uinoK pus [ouanbuilap aliuannp :1Jodau 3340; x391 'aoiisnp
lo uotieuqsgugwpv aui pus iuawaololug M91 lo uogssiwwog 5,1uapgsaud

 

 

'lIZ-66l ‘62? ‘2161 ‘Kfiowuofisa

 

Lewaouqv lo Leuanop °siuanbuglap iuaosalope 40 iuawafipnf [slow
Sugidwoud uo burlapom oiloqmfis pue 8A0[ 40 aouanllu; 8H1 ‘W'N ‘aoiiuaud

__ '682-882
‘(V) ‘02 ‘9951 ‘Xbolouofisd Buiilnsuog lo leuunop 'awooino
oginadeuaui dnoufi uo Sutures: ,sqsideuaui yo $133443 341 '9'3 ‘JBSOd

 

‘Zl6l ‘BOLAJGS
6uiiulud.§gsuey :sesuey ‘aouaamei °xooqpueu Kliwe; Buguoeai
3H1 ‘W'W ‘JIOM 3 ’1’0 ‘UBSXLJ "V'3 ‘Sdllllud "1‘3 ‘Sdllllud

 

'0151 ‘51;043-Kun1u33-uoialddv
:XJOA maN ‘XfiolouDKSd [eoguglo u; uo;1eo;;;pow JOlAPHBQ
°(°sp3) [aeuoiw '1'p g JESULJOBN '3 u} °swaisfis [sides

40 $1339; 0M1 :uogouaoo pue KlLDOJdlDBH 'g'p ‘piaa 9 '3'9 ‘uosaaiied

 

 

'18i7-lli7 ‘To’ ‘tl6l ‘KEOLOHDKSJ Leolum pun
Buiilnsuog JO leuanop °eguaiguo pue ‘siuamieauq ‘sfiuiiias
aldlltnw :swalqoud ionpuoo MllM sKoq J0} suogiuanuaiu1 '3'9 ‘uosuaiied

'ase-tss "2'95
‘896[ ‘KEOLOIDOS JO [QUJTlOD UPDLJBUJV 'Joineuaq quanbuu
-ap pue snieis otwouooaogoos 'p'n ‘uoslo g '3'p ‘lJqu "3°g ‘aKN

 

 

pit-€62 ‘E'z' ‘9£6l ‘Kauanbuuao
pue awiug 'JGOUPP GVl pue asgwoud 3H1 :uoisuanlg 'd ‘gxslaCaN

'2261 ‘ssaud uowefiuad
:xJoA maN °Kfiolouofisd*xiiunwwoo 01 sausaoadde [EJOlAQUBQ
'S'M ‘UOSPlAPG D ‘1‘W ‘PLPU003PW "V'U ‘113UIM "l‘W ‘LazllaN

 

'62-'92 "a"? ‘8961
‘uogieqoud leuapag 'Kiiunmwoo sun pue suctioaulog 'O'H ‘Jatlaow

 

’0861 ‘thsuaAgun aieis uefiiuagw ‘u041eiuasslp

leuoioOp pausilqndun 'Sleuoissalouduou Kiiunwwoo pus

3631103 Kniunwwoo ‘Kigsaanlun lo uoslledwoo [eiuawluadxa uv
ruinoK iuanbuglap uigm SuixJOM sleuolssalouduoN 'W autisiuug ‘lLauoigw

'lSGl ‘SSBJd
aooualg :xuol maN 'aanqanuis Leioos pus Kuoaui [eioos 'y'g ‘uoiuaw

'szst ‘ssaud auiusdweH
maN JO KitsuaAlun aui 2J3AOUPH °salisiu1 pue suuoul '3 ‘lauuaw

 

692

270

Seidman, E.S. & Rappaport, J. The educational pyramid: A paradigm for
research, training. and manpower utilization in community
psychology. 'American Journal of Community Psychology, 1974,
2. 119-130.

 

Seidman, E.S., Rappaport, J. & Davidson, W.S. Adolescents in legal
jeapordy: Initial success and replication of an alternative
to the juvenile justice system. Invited address: 1976
National Psychological Consultants to Management Consulting
Psychology Research Award, Meeting of the American Psycholo-
gical Association, Washington, D.C., 1976.

Seidman, E.S., Rappaport, J., Davidson, W.S. & Linney, J. Changing
human service systems: Intervention with children, adolescents,
adults and the elderly. New York: L. Erlbaum Associates,
in press.

 

 

Sellin, T. & Wolfgang, M.E. The measurement of delinquenoy. New York,
Wiley, 1964.

 

Selltiz, C., Wrightman, L.S. & Cook, S.W. Research methods in social
relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1976.

 

Shah, S.A. Perspectives and directions in juvenile corrections.
Psychiatric Quarterly, 1973, 42, 12-36

 

Shaw, C.R. Delinquency areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1929.

 

Shaw, C.R. & McKay, H.D. Juvenile delinquenoy and urban areas. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1942.

 

Shore, M.F. & Massimo, J.L. After ten years: A follow-up study of
comprehensive vocationally orientated psycholtherapy.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1973, 42, 128-132.

 

Short, J.F. gagg delinquency and delinquent subcultures. New York:
Harper & Rdw, 1968.

 

Siegel, J.M. Mental health volunteers as change agents. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 1973, 1, 138-158.

Smith, P.M. & Austrin, H.R. Socialization as related to delinquency
classification. Psychological Reports, 1974, 23, 677-678.

 

Stephenson, R.M. & Scarpitti, F.R. Essexfields: A non-residential
experiment in group centered rehabilitation of delinquents.
American Journal of Corrections, 1969, 21, 12-18.

271

Stuart, R.B. Behavioral contraCting within the families of delinquents.
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Eyperimental Psychiatry, 1971,
2, 1-11.

Stuart, R.B. & Lott, L.A. Behavioral contracting with delinquents: '
A coutionary note. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental
Psychiatry, 1972, 2,161-169.

 

Stuart, R.B. & Tripode, T. Experimental evaluation of three time-con-
strained behavioral treatments for pre-delinquents and delin-
quents. Advances in Behavior Therapy, 1973, 4, 1-12.

 

Tatsuoka, M. Multivariate statistics. New York: Academic Press, 1973.

 

Tharp, R.G. & Wetzel, R.J. Behavior modification in the natural environ-
ment. New York: Academic Press, 1969.

Ullmann, L. & Krasner, L. A psychological approach to abnormal behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975.

United States Bureau of the Census, Statistical abstracts of the United
States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. GovernmentiPrinting Office,
1979.

 

United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The challenge
of youth service bureaus.' Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1973.

 

 

Waldo, G.P. & Dinitz, S. Personality attributes of the criminal: An
analysis of research,studies, 1950-1965. Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency, 1967, 4, 185-202.

 

 

Williams, W. Implementation analysis and assessment. In W. Williams &
R. Elmore (Eds.). Social Program Implementation. New York:
Academic Press, 1976.

 

V/Williams, J.R. & Gold, I.M. From delinquent behavior to official
delinquency. Social Problems, 1972, 29, 209—229.

 

Wolfgang, M., Figlio, R, & Sellin, T. Delinqpenoy in a birth cohort.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974.

 

Wright, W.E. & Dixon, M.C. Community prevention and treatment of
juvenile delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 1977, 14, 35-67.