AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF ADJUSTMENT OF
DELINQUENT CHILDREN IN PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS

Thesis for the Dogma of M. S.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Philip P. VersIuis
I964

 

uuuumumnulmm IIIMIHIHHIIIHHHIHHIMHI ,
3 1293

I“
01070 4058

LIBRARY

Michigan $3“
University ‘

 

 

 

 

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF ADJUSTMENT OF DELINQUENT
CHILDREN IN PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS

BY

Philip P. Versluis

AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS

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

MASTER OF SCIENCE

School of Police Administration and Public Safety

1964

APPROVED C3
hairman

,4? , .
,/ ‘./ ‘ f- K r
411 L:‘;l;',bLL?-1o(’ / L ] :2; (I. 1,...“
‘,»‘z’ Idearnlaealr if
‘/ ' fig) /
{Z 1440, Q S- d) 46/;‘-C44'w. (5311/1-
'</' ‘

Megfigr

 

ABSTRACT

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF ADJUSTMENT OF DELINQUENT

CHILDREN IN PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS
by Philip P. Versluis

This study attempts to determine if there are
distinguishing characteristics between children who make a
successful adjustment and those who do not make a successful
adjustment in private institutions. It is thought that if
there are such characteristics, it is possible to isolate
them, determine their significance, and use them in deve10p-
ing an instrument that will suggest to court workers those
children who are most likely to adjust or not to adjust in
the private institutions.

Research indicates it is possible to isolate signif-
icant, distinguishing characteristics between select groups
of individuals and to deve10p reliable prediction instruments.
Their value lies in that they make it possible to evaluate a
particular individual in the persPective of organized experi-

ences with other individuals who are alike in many respects.

Philip P. Versluis

This study is made at the Kent County Juvenile Court
Center, Grand Rapids, Michigan. The sample consists of 179
delinquent children -- 100 who make a successful adjustment
and 79 who make a non-successful adjustment in the private
institutions. Within certain limitations, this is the total
number of delinquent children placed in private institutions
by the Kent County Juvenile Court during the period of

January 1, 1958, to December 31, 1962.

“,l‘

‘-

The successful and non-successful children are com-
pared according to twenty items. Of the twenty items, nine
items show a statistical significant difference between the
two groups of children. They are as follows:

1. Race — The non-white children are more than twice
as likely to make a non-successful rather than successful
adjustment in the private institutions.

2. Age at First Court Appearance - The children who
are 15 or older at the time of their first court appearance
are almost twice as likely to make a successful rather than
a non—successful adjustment.

3. Mother's Age at Time of Placement — The children
with the "younger" mothers are almost twice as likely to make

a non-successful rather than a successful adjustment.

Philip P. Versluis

4. Number of Contacts with Police Authorities —
The children who have four or additional contacts are more
than twice as likely to make a non-successful rather than a
successful adjustment.

5. Grade Completed Prior to Placement — The children
who have completed the 8th or higher grade are almost twice
as likely to make a successful rather than a non—successful
adjustment.

6. School Behavior Record - The children with the
“poor“ behavioral records are 1.36 times more likely to make
a non—successful rather than a successful adjustment.

7. 'Intelligence_Quotient - The children with an
I.Q. above 114 are more than twice as likely to make a non—
successful rather than a successful adjustment.

8. Psychological Diagnosis - The children labeled
with a neurotic reaction are about three times more likely
to make a successful rather than a non—successful adjustment.

9. Length of Time in Placement - The children who
are released at or before nine months from the private
institutions are almost seven times more likely to make a

non-successful rather than a successful adjustment.

Philip P. versluis

The major hypothesis of this study is confirmed.
It seems it is possible to isolate distinguishing character—
istics between the children who make a successful adjustment
and those who do not make a successful adjustment in private
institutions; and if other variables can be held constant,
to use these characteristics to suggest to court workers
those children who are more likely to adjust or not to adjust
in private institutions.

Further research is necessary to validate the

predictive reliability of the significant items.

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF ADJUSTMENT
OF DELINQUENT CHILDREN IN

PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS

BY

Philip P. Versluis

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF SCIENCE

School of Police Administration and Public Safety

1964

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was made possible by the assistance and
c00peration of many members of the staff at the Kent County
Juvenile Court. I am especially grateful to Mrs. Julia
Jagloski, for her assistance in collecting data for this
study. I also am grateful to Mr. Lawrence Larsen, Director
of Court Services,and Mr. vernon Laninga, Field Supervisor,
for their sincere interest and encouragement.

I wish, also, to express my appreciation to
Dr. Schnur, my advisor, for his helpful suggestions and
understanding support.

I also extend my appreciation to my brother, warren,
for editing this paper.

Finally, to my wife, Joyce, I express my gratitude,
for without her encouragement, this study probably would

not have been completed.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Chapter
I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS RESEARCH . . . . . . 16

III METHODOLOGY AND EXPLANATION . . . . . . . . 25

IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . 34

V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . 62
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

iii

Table

10.

ll.

12.

13.

l4.

l5.

16.

LIST OF TABLES

The Items of Comparison and Their Chi
Square,Degrees of Freedom and
Probability Level . . . . . . . .

Comparison by Sex . . . . . . . . .

Comparison by Race . . . . . . . . .

Comparison by Reason for Referral to

Comparison by Age at First Court
Appear ance O O O O O C O O O O 0

Court

Comparison by Number of Court Appearances.

Comparison by Mother's Age at Time of
Placement O O O O O O C C O O C .

Comparison by Parents' Marital Status

Comparison by Number of Natural Siblings .

Comparison by Family Income . . . .

Comparison by Number of Contacts with

Police Authorities . . . . . . .

Comparison by Grade Completed Prior.to

Placement . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparison by School Behavior Record
Comparison by School Truancy Record
Comparison by Intelligence Quotient

Comparison by Position in Family . .

iv

Page

35
36
37

40

4O

42

43
45
47

47

49

49
51
52
54

54

LIST OF TABLES (cont.)

Table Page

17. Comparison by Number of Times in
Detention Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

18. Comparison by Age at Placement . . . . . . . 57
19. Comparison by Psychological Diagnosis . . . 59

20. Comparison by Length of Time in
Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

21. Comparison by Church Attendance . . . . . . 61

CHAPTER I

Introduction

A common but continuing problem facing probation
officers, supervisors and judges of the juvenile courts is
what can be done with the adjudicated delinquent child who
cannot be permitted to return to his own home. It is often
realized that the child's home does not meet his needs, offers
little chance of meeting his needs in the immediate future
and is detrimental to his social and psychological well being.
When this problem occurs, the question arises as to where
should a child be placed to best insure his rehabilitation.
Should he be placed in a foster home, a private institution,
or a public institution?

This problem becomes especially acute in communities
where intensive efforts are directed in helping a child when
he first shows signs of maladjustment. It appears that in
these communities it is the rule, rather than the exception,
that the child who is in court today was the concern of some
treatment or protection service yesterday. And it seems as

more of the referrals to the court consist of these "failures"

the greater becomes the need for other than home placements.

Some writers feel, that outside of home, foster
care is the preferred placement choice while others cite the
advantages of institutional care.1 One should not generalize,
however, for some children are better helped in foster care
while others need the resources which can best be provided in
institutions. It seems to the writer that it is not really
important which placement is used as long as it best meets
the needs of the particular child. But this is not possible
without a diversified placement program.

It is the opinion of some writers that the move
toward diversification is well under way today.2 It is gen-
erally conceded that this is good, but it is also recognized
that it would not be possible without the inclusion of the
private institutions. It is felt that only by including the
private institutions does a placement agency, such as a
court, have an Opportunity to match the child's needs to a
specialized treatment program.

The problem arises, however, frequently after a

child and his family are thoroughly investigated, his problems,

 

J

lNegley K. Teeters and John O. Reinemann, The
Challepge of Delinquency (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1950). p. 504.

2Alfred J. Kahn, P1anning_Community Services for
Children in Trouble (New York and London: Columbia Uni-
versity Press, 1963), p. 420.

 

 

diagnosed and clarified, and he is placed in a private insti-
tution that seems best suited to fulfill his needs, the child
fails to adjust. It is most disheartening for a probation
officer to Spend considerable time and effort to place a
child in a private institution only to have him return to
the court after a few days or weeks because he could not
adjust to the program. This is no small problem; for,
according to this writer's research during the period of
January 1, 1958, to December 31, 1962, approximately 39% of
the children placed in private institutions by the Kent County
Juvenile Court failed to adjust. One could possibly conclude
that not enough care was exerted in selecting the proper
institution for the child, but this does not appear to be the
whole answer. On the contrary, much consideration is given
both by the court staff and the private institution before a
child is placed. Yet this phenomena continues to occur.
Because of the extent and challenge of the problem,
it was felt this phenomena should be further investigated.
The writer then contacted most of the Probation Officers at
the Kent County Juvenile Court and asked them for their
reasons why certain children they had placed did not adjust
in the private institutions. All of the answers revolved

around two thoughts: lack of controls and neurotic dependency.

It was the feeling of many of the Probation Officers that
the children did not have sufficient controls to be able to
adjust in the private, cpen institution. Several of the
other probation officers were convinced that the children
were neurotically dependent on one or both parents, and this
made it impossible for them to adjust in the private insti-
tution.

Although both points of view seemed reasonable, the
writer then raised the question as to why so many children
continue to fail in the private institution. If special
attention were given to the children who need more controls
or who are neurotically dependent on their parents, should
not the number of children who fail to adjust be reduced?
But the number seemed to remain fairly constant over the past
few years. The writer then concluded that possibly each child
possessed certain, undiscovered or unrecoqnized, character-
istics which might affect his adjustment in the private
institution. It was thought that if there were such char-
acteristics then it might be possible to isolate them and
determine their significance in the child's successful or
non-successful adjustment.

Of course, even though a study such as this might

isolate significant characteristics between those children

who adjust in a private institution and those who do not,
this is not an attempt to replace social casework interviews
or psychological evaluation reports in the placement of
children. Rather, it was felt if significant differences
could be distinguished between the children who adjust in
private institutions and those who do not, conceivably,

this could be an additional aid which might be influential
in saving a child from experiencing another failure, the
probation officer from some needless effort, and the court
from some unnecessary expense.

Attempts to predict future behavior on the basis of
certain characteristics is not new. The Gluecks for over
thirty years have been engaged in prediction research.3 In
one of their best known books, Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency,
they describe their study of 500 delinquent and 500 non-
delinquent boys. They compared these two groups of boys
according to some 400 traits and factors, and from these
determined five factors which differentiated delinquent
from non-delinquents. Originally, these five factors were

the basis for their prediction of potential delinquent boys.

 

IMaude M. Craig and Selma J. Glick, "Ten Years'
Experience with the Glueck Social Prediction Table," Crime
and Delinquency, VOlume 9, No. 3 (July, 1963), p. 249.

 

Since that time other behavioral scientists have
made prediction studies. One of the most recent, completed
in 1960, attempted the prediction of recidivism among
institutionalized juvenile delinquents.4 The authors found
ten significant differences between recidivist and non-
recidivists. These ten differences formed the basis for
their prediction check list. Although their findings need
further validation, it seems to the writer the importance
of their study was that if showed there are significant
differences between recidivists and non-recidivists.

Other studies also showed significant differences
between the groups of children that were compared. A study
by Joe L. Perry and a study by Donald H. Campbell are cited
later. A study by Evert W; Vermeer in 1961, showed several
significant differences between the children who made a
successful and unsuccessful adjustment in foster homes.

From these mentioned studies it was concluded that
it might be productive to make a comparative study of those
children who made a successful and non-successful adjustment

in the private institutions.

 

4Dugald S. Arbuckle and Lawrence Litwack,"A Study
of Recidivism Among Juvenile Delinquents," Federal Probation,
XXIV, No. 4 (December, 1960), pp. 45-48.

 

5Evert W; Vermeer, "An Exploratory Study of Adjust-
ment of Delinquent Children in Foster Homes." (Unpublished
Master's Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
1961.)

This study was made at the Kent County Juvenile
Court Center, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Children under 17 years
of age who reside in the county come to the attention of this
court for violation of city, state, or federal laws. After
a thorough investigation and evaluation some of the adjudicated
delinquents are placed in private institutions. This court
places approximately 45 delinquent children in private insti-
tutions throughout the United States annually.

This study was limited to those delinquents who
were placed in private institutions during the period of
January 1, 1958, to December 31, 1962. It was further
restricted to include delinquents who were released from the
private institutions prior to December 1, 1963. Additionally,
it included the delinquent's first placement in a private
institution.

In order to set necessary limits for the study it
is necessary that several of our terms be defined. A delin-
quent is considered a child who is referred to the court for
violation of a city, state or federal law or violation of
probation, a legal petition is accepted, and the child is
adjudicated a delinquent and made a temporary ward of the

court for the purpose of placement in a private institution.

A private institution is considered an "Open“
residential center without walls or fences, operated under
private auspices, where boys or girls or both, reside at the
center and attend either the center's own private school or
their local public or parochial schools. The institution
retains the authority to accept or reject all applicants for
placement. Children are placed for an indefinite period of
time and are returned to the court upon the recommendation
of the institution with the concurring approval of the court.

Successful adjustment in a private institution refers
to those delinquents who were released from the private
institutions and returned to the court for satisfactory be-
havior or for having received maximum benefits from the insti—
tution.

Non-successful adjustment in private institutions
refers to those delinquents who were released from the private
institutions for unsatisfactory behavior or for further vio-
lations of the law and were returned to the court for further
disposition.

The major focus or hypothesis of this study, as
already implied, is that there are characteristics which con-
tribute to a successful or non-successful adjustment in the

private institution. It is felt that if there are such

contributing characteristics, then it might be possible to
isolate them and hopefully use them later in helping to deter-
mine what children can or cannot adjust in private institutions.

More specifically, from observation by this writer
and other staff members at the court, several other sub
hypotheses seemed to be suggested.

It was felt that girls would more likely make a
successful adjustment in the private institutions than boys.
The theory behind this was that boys are more prone than girls
to walk away from a placement and hitch-hike home or steal a
car and continue to travel until apprehended.

It was also hypothesized that the children who attended
church regularly prior to placement would more likely make a
successful adjustment than the children who did not. The
thought behind this hypothesis was that the children who had
attended church regularly might have a little more internal
control and might receive some support from their religious
faith, especially during the first few weeks of their place-
ment.

It was further hypothesized that the fewer number of
times the children were placed in the Detention Home prior to
placement, the more likely they would make a successful

adjustment in the private institution. It was reasoned that

10

the children who frequently needed the controls and security
of detention would have greater difficulty adjusting to the
"open" private institution.

Another hypothesis that seems to have merit is that
the children classified.with a "good" or "fair“ school behavioral
record would more likely make a successful adjustment in the
private institution than the children classified with a "poor"
school behavioral record. It was reasoned that the children
would carry with them their past exPeriences and attitudes about
school, and thus the children who have had a more difficult
time in school will probably have a more difficult time in
school in the private institutions. It seemed as if a child
who was having trouble in school in the private institution
would probably be less likely to make a successful adjustment.

It is further hypothesized that the children who
remain in the private institution longer thanrfine months will
more likely make a successful adjustment than the children
who are released at or before nine months. This hypothesis
is based primarily on observation since the writer frequently
observed children being returned to court prior to nine
months for unsuccessful adjustment in the private institution.

Another hypothesis suggested by observation is that

the children with a fewer number of contacts with the police

ll

authorities at the time of placement will more likely make a
successful adjustment than the children with more or many
contacts. The theory behind this hypothesis is that the
children who have had many contacts with the police probably
would be more aggressive and have less respect for authority.
It is felt that this in turn might provoke more runaways or
negative behavior at the private institutions.

The last hypothesis based on observation is that the
children who are diagnosed by the psychologist and labeled
"neurotic reaction" would more likely make a successful
adjustment than the children labeled with some other diagnostic
terms. The reasoning behind this hypothesis is that children
with some type of characterological problem tend to act out
in response to emotional tension, and, therefore, it is felt
that these children might be more likely to run away or be-
have in some aggressive manner which would lead to an
unsuccessful adjustment in the private institution.

Several of the hypotheses for this study are based
on research made by D. H. Campbell in 1948.6 Using several
of his items that he found significant, it is hypothesized

that the children placed in the private institution prior to

 

6William C. Kvaraceus, The Community and the Delinquent
(Yonkers, New York: Wbrld Book C0,, 1954), pp. 482-483, citing
Prognostic Indicators of Delinqpent Boys in a Training School,
Unpublished Master's Thesis, Boston University, 1948.

12

their 13th birthday would more likely make a successful adjust—
ment than the children placed after their 13th birthday. It

is further hypothesized that the children who have four or

more natural siblings will more likely make a successful adjust-
ment than the children who have three or less natural siblings.
Also, on the basis of this same research, it is hypothesized
that the children whose parents are living together would

more likely make a successful adjustment than the children
whose parents are not living together. And lastly, it is
hypothesized that the children whose ordinal position in

their family is last born would more likely make a successful
adjustment than the children who are not last born.

On the basis of a study made by J. L. Perry in 1953,
this writer formulated the following hypotheses.7 It is
hypothesized that the children with an I.Q. score of 114 or
less would more likely make a successful adjustment than the
children with an I.Q. score of above 114. It is also hypoth-
esized that the children who commit offenses against property
would be less likely to make a successful adjustment in the

private institution than the children who commit other offenses.

 

7William C. Kvaraceus, The Community and the Delinquent

 

(Yonkers, New York: New WOrld Book Co., 1954), p. 494, citing
The Construction and Validation of a Technique for Predicting
the Incidence of Runaways Among Institutionalized Delinquent
Boys, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Boston University, 1953.

 

 

13

It is further hypothesized that nonewhite children would
more likely make a successful adjustment than white children
and that the children who have "excessive" school truancy
records would less likely make a successful adjustment than
the children with "none" or "occasional" truancy records.
Lastly, it is hypothesized on the basis of this study that
the children who have three or more court appearances prior
to placement are less likely to make a successful adjustment
than the children who have two or less court appearances
before placement.

On the basis of a study completed in 1960, the
following several hypotheses were formulated.8 It is hypothe-
sized that the children with the "older" or "medium" age
mother at the time of the children's placement would more
likely make a successful adjustment than the children with
the "younger" mother. Further, it is hypothesized that the
children who were 15 years old or older, at the time of their
first appearance before the court would more likely make a
successful adjustment than the children who were under 15
years of age. Lastly, on the basis of this study, it is

hypothesized that the children who had completed the 8th or

 

8Dugald S. Arbuckle and Lawrence Litwack, "A Study
of Recidivism.Among Juvenile Delinquents," Federal Probation,
XXIV, No. 4 (December, 1960). pp. 45-48.

 

14

a higher grade at the time of placement would more likely
make a successful adjustment than the children who had com-
pleted less than the 8th grade.

Finally, on the basis of a study made by H. L. Saverson
in 1963, it was hypothesized that the children from the "low"
economic families would be less likely to make a successful
adjustment in the private institution than the children who
were not from the "low" economic families.9 In the study by
Mr. H. L. Saverson, this item was very significant in differ-
entiating the repeater from the non-repeater at the Kent
County Juvenile Court. It was felt that possibly the factors
that were involved in leading these children to commit another
delinquent act might also be the factors involved in making
it more difficult for them to make a successful adjustment in
the private institution.

A word should be mentioned about our study in general.
During the time of this study, the children were placed in
32 different private institutions. The names and locations
of these institutions and the number of children who made a
successful and non—successful adjustment in each institution,

are listed in the appendices. ‘We know these institutions are

 

9Henry L. Saverson, “An Exploratory Study of Juvenile
Repeaters and Non-Repeaters." (Unpublished Research Project,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1963), p. 6.

15

not all comparable regarding their size, location, population,
number of staff, security, and methods of treatment. There-
fore, in order to give this study meaning, we made three
assumptions:

First, it was assumed that the institutions, although
different, were comparable in their purpose and determination
to help the particular children with whom they were working.

Secondly, it was assumed that the children were
placed in the institution best suited to fulfill their
particular needs.

Thirdly, it was assumed that all the court workers
involved with these children were comparable in regard to

competence and philosophy.

CHAPTER II
Background and Prior Research

The first institutions in the United States for
the care of dependent and delinquent children were operated
under private auspices.l John Griscom, an educator, deserves
much of the credit for these institutions. Although he
might not have been the first one to become alarmed at seeing
youthful offenders sent to county jails and state prisons,
he was the first one to do something about it. Borrowing
ideas from the European "infant schools" and obtaining the
help of a society that he initiated, Professor Griscom, in
1825, Opened the New York City House of Refuge. The follow-
ing year the House of Reformation was established in Boston,
and two years later a similar institution was opened in
Philadelphia.2

These three institutions, divorced from state control,
became the trail—blazers for the other institutions that

followed. Although their methods seemed to be punitive,

 

lNegley K. Teeters and John O. Reinemann, The
Challenge of Delinquency (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1950),
pp. 429—431.

2
Ibid.

 

16

17

their purpose was to instruct and reform the children under
their care; and this was an unusual philosophy for that day.

Apparently this approach or philosophy caught on,
for approximately twenty years after the first private insti-
tution for delinquent children was Opened in New York City,
the Municipal Boys House of Refuge was established in New
Orleans. This was the first public institution of its kind
in the United States; and two years later, in 1847, was
followed by a state reform school for boys in Massachusetts.3
This last institution became the forerunner of the many other
state reform schools which were built in the 1850's in the
United States.

The first public reform schools seemed to be
superior to the first houses of refuge both in architecture
and methods.4 Instead of the bleak, prison-like atmosphere
of the Houses of Refuge, the reform schools, authorized and
built in the various states, were built on the Open, cottage
type principle. Most of them.were designed attractively, and
at least attempts were made to eliminate prison-like character-
istics. Although these institutions were an improvement over

the older Houses of Refuge, it is believed they relied too

 

3Ibid., p. 435.

4Ibid.: pp. 435-448.

18

heavily on severe discipline and long hours of work in the
fields to be really considered treatment centers for juvenile
delinquents.

From the humble beginnings of the first House of
Refuge in New York City in 1825, there has developed today
in the United States approximately 350 institutions serving
adjudicated delinquent children.5 Of these, one is the
federal training school; 132 are state training schools; 52
are county or city training schools; 11 are state reception
or diagnostic centers; 29 are forestry camps; and 135 are
schools under private ausPices. It is estimated the public
institutions accommodate approximately 36,000 delinquent
children at any one time while the private schools house
approximately 10,000 children.6

One can see from the preceding figures the importance
of the private schools today in the total national picture.
Without the private schools it seems placement agencies would
find it impossible to locate suitable institutions for the
children that need them. Even with the number of private

institutions which we have today, it is extremely difficult

 

5Donald G. Blackburn, "Institutions for Juvenile
Delinquents, A Review of Recent Developments," National Pro-
bation and Parole Association Journal, IV, No. 1 (January,
1958). p. 12.

61bid.

 

 

19

to place every child in the institution that seems best suited
for his individual needs. But, with the current emphasis on
greater diversification of treatment resources for children,
it can be hOped, more Specialized placement facilities will

be available in the future.

As one reflects on the problem of more adequate and
more specialized treatment institutions for children, one
cannot help but raise the following question: how successful,
really, are these institutions? Are they so much more effec-
tive than the first House of Refuge or the early, punitive
method of placing children in the county jails and state
prisons?

Early attempts to determine the effectiveness of the
first houses of refuge made them appear rather successful.
Although few, if any, valid follow-up studies were made of
the children, one report indicated that of the 513 children
who had returned to society from the New York City House of
Refuge more than 200 were saved from "infallible ruin."7
Later, studies would seem to question these findings;however,
current research estimates the success rate for training

schools at about 60 to 70%.8

 

7Teeters, o . cit., p. 440.

8Paul Schreiber, HOw Effective are Services for the
Treatment of Delinquents, Childrens Bureau, Social Security
Administration, United States Department of Health, Education
and welfare, NO. 9 (washington: 1960), p. 9.

 

20

St. Anne's Institution in New York, a private insti-
tution under Catholic auspices, reports 76% of their children
have made excellent adjustments upon release.9 Highfields,

a public facility in New Jersey, reports 63% of their children
have no difficulty in the community for at least one year
after release.10

In 1953, the McCords studied the success ratio
between Wiltwyck, a private school, and the New England State
Training School. Their criterion for success was based on
those delinquents who did not need to return to Court for
further violations of the law. According to their findings
during the five year period after release, 71%.of the children
from the private school were successful as compared to 53%
from the state school.11

Although more and more research is being conducted
in this area of the effectiveness of training schools, there
are many areas where research is extremely limited. One
such area is the question and problem of adjustment of chil-
dren while in the institution. This is especially important
in the private institutions, for they are open and without

fences; and it is not difficult for a child to leave if he

 

9Ibid.

lOIbid.. p. 10.

llIbid., p. 10—11.

21

so desires. Since you have to "have them to treat them," it
is important to know whether or not a child will be able to
adjust to an institutional program. According to this writer's
research, there have not been many studies which have attempted
to predict a child's adjustment in an institution. There are
three studies, however, which appear significantly and in-
directly related to this question of adjustment. These
studies, as well as the writer's observations as previously
mentioned, are the basis for most of the writer's hypotheses
in this study.

A study made by Donald H. Campbell in 1948, of
factors or characteristics associated with successful treat-
ment of delinquent children committed to the Lyman School
for Boys in Massachusetts, showed that there were eight sig-
nificant differences between the children who made a successful
adjustment and those who did not. He found that the children
with the following characteristics were the most likely to
adjust:12

(1) Early commitment under 13

(2) School retardation not exceeding one year

(3) Membership in large families

 

2William C. Kvaraceus, The Community and the Delin-
quent (Yonkers, New York: WOrld Book Co., 1954), pp. 482-483,
citing Prngnostic Indicators of Delinquent Boys in a Traininq
School. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Boston University, 1948.

22

(4) Ordinal position in family as last born

(5) Physical disability needing medical treatment

(6) Intact home - parents living together

(7) One outstanding high score on test battery

(8) Lower than 80 on Healy Picture Completion Test

A similar study conducted by Joe L. Perry in 1953 at
the Shirley Industrial School for Boys in Massachusetts, re-
vealed 11 significant characteristics between the children who
failed to adjust by running away and those who did not attempt
to run away. Although this study is only indirectly related
to our present study, it is felt that it is significant be-
cause many of the children who fail to adjust in private
institutions do so by running away several or more times.
Perry's study asserted that children with the following ten
characteristics would be more likely to run away than the
children not having these characteristics.13 Listed, the
characteristics are as follows:

(1) Weight above 157

(2) Age at commitment below 14 years

(3) I.Q. above 114

(4) White race

 

3William C. Kvaraceus, The Community_and the Delin-
quent (Yonkers, New York: WOrld Book Co., 1954), p. 494,
citing The Construction and Validation of a Technique for
Predicting‘the Incidence of Runaways Among Institutionalized
Delinquent Boys, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Boston University,

1953.

 

 

 

 

(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)

(10)

23

Record of school truancy

Two times in court before commitment
Offense against property

Formerly on probation

Runaway from home or truancy school

Has step-mother

Finally, a third study, that again is only indirectly

related to our present study, was made by Dugald S. Arbuckle

and Lawrence Litwack.l4 In this study of 500 boys from the

Lyman School for Boys in Massachusetts during 1953 to 1958,

they found ten statistically significant differences between

the recidivist and non-recidivist. Out of 163 variables the

following ten were significant:

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)

Height

Mother's age at time of boy's commitment
Father ever in jail

School grade completed

Age at first court appearance

Age at time of commitment

Age arrived at training school

Number of times in discipline cottage

 

l4Dugald S. Arbuckle and Lawrence Litwack, "A Study
of Recidivism Among Juvenile Delinquents," Federal Probation,

XXIV, No. 4 (December, 1960), pp. 45-48.

 

24

(9) Age at time of parole

(10) Paroled to school or work

The authors found that the taller the boy, the more
likely he was to succeed; that the older the mother, the more
likely a success; that if the father was never in jail, the
boy was more likely to succeed; that the higher the grade
reached by the boy, the more likely he was to succeed; that
the Older the boy, at the time of his first court appearance,
commitment and arrival at the training school, the more likely
he would succeed; that the boy who never was in the discipline
cottage, the more likely he was to succeed; that the older
the boy at the time of release on parole, the more likely a
success; and that those paroled to work were more likely to
succeed.

It was felt this study could be used to suggest some
of our hypotheses, for it was reasoned that the non—recidivist
probably received more meaningful help from the boys' school
than the recidivist. Furthermore, it was thought that the
boys that received the more meaningful help probably made
the more successful adjustment in the boys school. Thus, it
was felt that maybe some Of these items might prove significant
too, in a comparison of children who make a successful and

non-successful adjustment in the private institutions.

CHAPTER I I I

Methodology and Explanation

As was mentioned in Chapter I, this study was made
at the Kent County Juvenile Court Center, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
A total of 214 cases was examined for this study. This was
the total number of delinquent children placed by the Kent
County Juvenile Court in private institutions during the
period of January 1, 1958, to December 31, 1962. From this
total, 25 cases had to be eliminated because the children,
although placed during the above period, were not released
from their private institutions prior to December 1, 1963.

In addition, 10 cases also had to be eliminated because it
was the child's second or additional private institutional
placement. These limitations were necessary, in the first
instance, to permit us to comply with the definition of our
terms and, in the second instance, to provide for a valid
comparison.

This would leave, then, out of a total of 214 cases,
179 cases for this study. By pre-examining the cases it was

found 100 children made a successful adjustment in the private

25

26

institutions and 79 children failed to make a successful
adjustment in the private institutions. This was determined
by examining each child's liber card which is listed alpha-
betically at the court. Information on the liber card
includes, among other things, the date when a child is committed
to a private institution, the date he is released, the reason
for his release, and the child's subsequent placement or
disposition. From this card, then, it was possible to deter-
mine if a child had made a successful or non-successful adjust-
ment in the private institution.

Our sample, then, was 100 children who made a successful
adjustment in the private institution and 79 children who
were non-successful. These two groups were then compared
according to 20 variables. These variables were selected on
the basis of the previously mentioned research and on avail-
ability and objectivity.

The 20 variables, with an explanation about each
one, are listed as follows:

1. SEX - It was felt that girls would more

likely adjust in a private institution than boys.
2. RACE - This item was broken down into two
categories: (a) white children, (b) nonawhite children.

Nonawhite children included Negroes, Indians, Mexicans

27

and Puerto Ricans. These races were grouped to-
gether because the sample included only three
children other than Negro.

3. REASON FOR REFERRAL TO THE COURT - This
item was separated into seven categories: (a) auto
theft, (b) breaking and entering, (c) theft,

(d) runaway, (e) ungovernable, (f) sex offense,
and (g) other offenses. "Other“ offenses included
only non-property offenses such as assault and
truancy. The categories of (a) through (c) were
considered property offenses, and the categories
(d) through (g) non-proPerty offenses.

4. AGE AT FIRST COURT APPEARANCE - Appearance
before the court was defined as appearance before
the judge in a court hearing to answer the
allegations of a petition. This item was separated
into three categories: (a) 12 years old or younger,
(b) 13 through 14 years of age, and (c) 15 or older.

5. NUMBER OF COURT APPEARANCES BEFORE PLACEMENT -
Appearance before the court again was defined to mean
an appearance before the judge in a court hearing to
answer allegations of a petition. This item was

brOken down into three categories: (a) one appearance,

28

(b) two appearances, and (c) three or more appearances.
It should be noted that all children placed in private
institutions must have at least one court appearance
before placement.

6. THE MOTHER'S AGE AT TIME OF PLACEMENT - This
item was separated into three categories: (a) age
37 or younger, (b) 38 through 45, (c) age 46 or older.
The first group was considered the younger mothers;
the second group the medium age mothers; and the
third group the Older mothers.

7. PARENTS' MARITAL STATUS - This item.was
separated into five groups: (a) married, (b) separated,
(c) divorced, (d) unmarried, (e) deceased. It should
be noted that the parents who were married, but not
living together, were considered as being separated.
The only group, then, considered living together,
were the married parents.

8. NUMBER OF NATURAL SIBLINGS - This item was
separated into two categories: (a) three or less
siblings, (b) four or more siblings. This item did
not consider step or half or foster siblings.

9. FAMILY INCOME - This item was divided into

three classifications: (a) $80 or less per week,

29

(b) $81 through $99 per week, (c) $100 or more per
week. The first classification was considered to be
the low economic families.

10. NUMBER OF CONTACTS WITH POLICE AUTHORITIES -
This item was separated into four categories: (a) no
contacts, (b) one contact, (c) two through three
contacts, (d) four or more contacts. Contact with
the police authorities refers to each occasion that
the child came to the attention of the police
authorities for some alleged delinquent act, and the
authorities made a notation of the contact in the
child's police record.

11 . GRADE COMPLETED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT — This
item was separated into four categories: (a) 6th
grade or less, (b) 7th grade, (c) 8th grade, (d) 9th
grade or beyond.

12. SCHOOL BEHAVIOR RECORD - This item was
broken down into three categories: (a) good behavior
record, (b) fair behavior records, and (c) poor
behavior record. Although this is a subjective item,
the writer attempted to be objective by very closely
scrutinizing the school counselor's and teachers'

comments regarding each child. "Good behavior" meant

30

school was not a problem for the child. "Fair
behavior“ meant that the child occasionally needed
special attention from the school personnel. "Poor
behavior" meant that school was a problem area for
the child and the child needed special help.

13. SCHOOL TRUANCY RECORD — This item was
separated into three categories: (a) excessive
truancy, (b) occasional truancy, and (c) no truancy.
This item, too, is subjective in nature; however,
excessive truancy was defined to mean a child who
is truant from school approximately 1/3 of the time.
Occasional truancy was defined to mean the child
who occasionally misses school without sufficient
reason but is not considered a truancy problem by
the school authorities. Notruancy means that the
child has no truancy record at school.

14. 1.0. — This item.was separated into five
categories: (a) 1.0., 84 or less; (b) 1.0., 85 to 94;
(c) I.Q.. 95 to 104; (d) I.Q.. 105 to 114; and (e) I.Q.,
115 or above. The wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children was the standard I.Q. test for this item.

15. POSITION IN FAMILY - This item was broken

down into four categories: (a) only child, (b) first

31

born child, (c) in-between child, and (d) last
born. Half, step or foster siblings were not
given consideration in this item.

16. NUMBER OF TIMES IN DETENTION HOME - This
item was separated into four categories: (a) no
times, (b) one time, (c) two times, or (d) three
or more times.

17. AGE AT PLACEMENT — This item was divided
into three categories: (a) 12 years old or younger,
(b) 13 years through 15 years Old and (c) 16 or older.

18. PSYCHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSIS - This item was
separated into four categories: (a) neurotic reaction,
(b) character disorder, (c) character neurosis, and
(d) other diagnosis. A description of the first three
categories are listed in the appendices. The category
.of "other diagnosis" included personality hysteria,
behavioral schizophrenic, environmental reaction,
sociopathic and psychopathic personality, situational
reaction, paranoid reaction, and psychotic and anxiety
reaction. These terms were taken from the psycho-
logical evaluation reports; and they were the terms
used by the psychologists, in addition to the other
three categories in diagnosing or labeling the

particular child they were testing.

32

It should be mentioned that a total of eleven
children, six in the successful and five in the non-
successful group, were not tested or evaluated by
the psychologist. These children were placed in
the ”other diagnosis" category. One might question
the validity of these findings onthis count; however,
if one analyzes the data in this section, one will
find even if the children had been tested by the
psychOlOgist and diagnosed to fit one of the other
categories, the findings would still be significant.

19. LENGTH OF TIME IN PLACEMENT - This item.was
separated into three categories: (a) nine months or
less, (b) ten to fifteen months, and (c) sixteen
months or longer.

20. CHURCH.ATTENDANCE - This item was separated
into three categories: (a) regular church attendance,
(b) occasional church attendance, and (c) no church
attendance. Regular church attendance was defined
to mean that the children attended church usually
every Sunday. Occasional attendance was defined
that the children went to church only on special
Occasions, and no church attendance meant that the

children did not attend church anytime.

33

The information for this data was gathered exclusively
from each child's social file. The child's social file at the
Kent County Juvenile Court is broken down into two major
divisions: Family Case Record and Correspondence and
Miscellaneous.

The Family Case Record section of the file contains
a face sheet, an example which is attached in the appendices,
an intake worker's report, a field investigation or social
history report, a psychological and occasionally a psychiatric
evaluation report and chronological recording reports by the
probation officer.

The Correspondence and Miscellaneous portion of the
file contains all the correspondence regarding a particular
child, including the child's referral report to the court
if applicable, a copy Of the legal petition, a detention
admission report and other miscellaneous reports from the
Detention Home if the child was inthe Detention Home. This
section of the file also contains the child's progress

reports from the institution.

CHAPTER IV

Presentation and Analysis of Data

The data that was collected for this study was
analyzed by computing the distribution percentages of each
group within each item, by determining the level of sig-
nificance of each item as measured by chi—square, and by
determining the proportionibr successful or non-successful
adjustment in the significant items. If an item had a
probability of .05 it_was considered significant. If an
item had a probability of .10 or larger it was considered
insignificant. If an item had a probability of .02 or
less it was considered very significant. The chi-square
table used in this study was an abridged table of Fisher
and Yates.

Table 1 summarizes the findings of this study
by listing the items of comparison and specifying their

chi-square, degrees of freedom, and probability level.

 

lQuinn McNemar, Psychological Statistics (New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1949), pp. 350-351.

 

34

35

 

 

 

Table l
DEgrees
Items of Chi- of Probability
Comparison Square Freedom Level
1. Sex 1.41 l .80
2. Race 4.57 1 .05
3. Reason for Referral
to the Court 9.85 6 .20
4. Age at First Court
Appearance 6.27 2 .05
5. Number of Court Appearances 1.50 2 .50
6. Mother's Age at Time of
Placement 9.17 2 .02
. Parents' Marital Status .63 4 .98
8. Number of Natural Siblings .20 l .70
. Family Income 3.67 2 .20
10. Number of Contacts with
Police Authorities 11.27 3 .02
11. Grade Completed Prior
to Placement 14.96 3 .01
12. School Behavior Record 7.42 2 .05
13. School Truancy Record 4.11 2 .20
14. Intelligence Quotient 14.41 4 .01
15. Position in Family .99 3 .90
16. Number of Times in
Detention Home 3.95 3 .30
17. Age at Placement 3.41 2 .20
18. Psychological Diagnosis 15.74 3 .01
19. Length of Time in Placement79.l4 2 .00001
20. Church Attendance 1.10 2 .70

 

36

The following pages present and analyze the data of
this study. It should be noted that the sample consists of

55.92% in the successful group and 44.08% in the non-successful

 

 

 

 

 

 

group.
TABLE 2
Comparison by Sex
Sex Boys Girls Totals
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Successful 39 39 61 61 100 100
Non-
successful 33 41.8 46 58.2 79 100
Totals 72 40.2 107 59.8 179 100
2
x = .141 P =<.80

 

The correlation of sex with successful or non-success-
ful adjustment in private institutions is insignificant. Per-
centage wise, the findings would tend to support our hypothesis
that girls are more likely to adjust than boys. Of the
successful group 61%.were girls and 39% were boys; whereas,
of the non-successful group 58.2%.were girls and 41.8%.were
boys.

The most important thing about Table 2 appears to be
that 59.8% of the children in private institutions are girls.

This is quite surprising when one considers that there are

37

approximately three times as many boys referred to the court
as girls. This means, then, that girls make up only about
25% of the referrals to the court; yet, they make up 59.8%
of the court’s p0pulation in the private institutions.
Apparently, it is felt that girls more often need private
institutions than boys. According to the statistical report
released by the Kent County Juvenile Court for 1963, this
may be explained in part by the girls' offenses, by their
home situations, and by the girls' greater need for detention.
Perhaps, too, the court's attitude might be different toward
delinquent girls than toward boys. This is an area where

further research might be very helpful.

TABLE 3

Comparison by Race

 

Race White Non-White Totals
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

 

 

 

 

Successful 90 90 10 10 100 100

Non-

successful 62 78.5 17 21.5 79 100

Totals 152 84.9 27 15.1 179 100
2

x = 4.57 P= < .05

 

38

The correlation of race with successful or non-
successful adjustment in private institutions is significant.
The findings do not support our hypothesis but rather con-
firm the Opposite. That is, white children are more likely
to make a successful adjustment in the private institution
than non-White children.

Of the successful group, 90% were white and 10%.were
non-white, while of the non-successful group 78.5%.were white
and 21.5%;were non-White. Pr0portiona11y, the non-White
children are more than twice as likely to make a non-successful
adjustment than successful adjustment in the private insti-
tution. Our findings disagree with the study by Mr. Perry,
who found that white boys are more likely to runaway from
the institution than non-white boys.2

It is also interesting to note that of the 179
children in private institutions, 84.9% are white children
and 15.1% are non-White children. According to statistics
of the Kent County Juvenile Court for 1963, the racial
composition of referrals to the court was 28.2% non-White
children. Assuming that this percentage is about the same

as the percentage of the years of this study, and, assuming

 

2William C. Kvaraceus, The Community and the Delinquent,
(Yonkers, New York: WOrld Book Co., 1954), p.494, citing The.
Construction and Validation of a Technique for Predicting the
Incidence of Runaways Among Institutionalized Delinquent Boys,
Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Boston University, 1953.

 

 

 

39

that the two groups of children are comparable, it appears
that the non-white children are about one half as likely to
be placed in private institutions as White children. This
observation appears remarkable, especially in view that the
court makes every effort to treat each child only according
to need. Perhaps the answer lies within the private insti-
tutions, for many are closed to non-White children. Possibly
this category reflects the non-availability of private
institutions for non-white children.

The correlation of reason for referral to court
with successful or non-successful adjustment in private insti-
tutions is insignificant. Percentage wise, the findings
would tend to support our hypothesis that the children who
are referred to the court for offenses against property are
less likely to make a successful adjustment than the children
who are referred for other offenses. Of the successful
group, 23%wwere referred for offenses against property and
77% for other offenses; whereas, of the non-successful group,
29.1%;were referred for offenses against property and 70.9%
for other offenses. The findings tend to support other
research that shows children with offenses against pr0perty

. . . . 3 .
are more likely to runaway from the institution. This

 

3Ibid.

4O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mo. v u m eN.O n «x
OOH th m.mm Hm ¢.O¢ mm H.mm me mHmuOB
OOH mm m.mH mH O.Hm He «.mm mm Hammmmoosm
Icoz
OOH OOH Om Om NO we mm mm Hemmmmoosm
psmoumm HOHEOZ pcmoumm HOQEOZ pcmonmm “OHEOZ Homoumm HOHEOZ
mHmuos HOOHO cam OH OH I MH HOOOOOM cam NH 0mm
moamummmmm unsoo pmuHm pm O04 an OOmHHmmEOU
m mnmfla
om. v u m mm.m n ax
OOH OBH OH OH ¢.m mH H.mm mm 0.0m we 0.0H OH d.w mH >.O NH mHmuoa
OOH Oh m.O m H.m w m.hm mm O.Hm mm m.MH HH ¢.HH m m.m m Hammmmoosm
Icoz
OOH OOH MH mH HH HH Om Om mm mm m O O O O m Hdmmmmoodm
.x. .02 x. .02 X .02 X .02 x .02 x. .02 X .02 x. .02
mHmuoa Hmflpo xmm OHQm Nmzmcsm “HOSE m O m pmmna OOmmOm
IOHO>OOOD Quad

 

“i

pnsoo Op Hmnuwmmm How cemmmm >9 OOOHHmmEOU

w mflmflfi

 

41

category seems to support Table 2 which tended to show girls
more often make a successful adjustment than boys. For
according to statistics of the Kent County Juvenile Court
for 1963, boys were most frequently referred for Breaking
and Entering and Larceny (property Offense) and girls for
Runaway (non—property offense).

The correlation of the age of the child at first
court appearance with successful or non-successful adjustment
in private institutions is significant. The findings confirm
our hypothesis that children who are 15 years Old or older
at the time of their first court appearance are more likely
to make a successful adjustment than children who were under
15 years of age. Of the successful group, 64%wwere under 15
years of age and 36%‘were 15 or older; Whereas, of the non-
successful group 81.1%wwere under and 18.9%.were 15 or older.
Pr0portionally, the children who were 15 or older when they
first appeared before court are almost twice as likely to
make a successful adjustment than non-successful adjustment
in private institutions. Our findings agree with the findings
of previous research that the older the child at the time of

his first court appearance the more likely he will succeed.

 

4Dugald S. Arbuckle and Lawrence Litwack, "A Study
of Recidivism Among Juvenile Delinquents," Federal Probation,
XXIV, NO. 4 (December, 1960), pp. 45-48.

42

Speculating, it probably could be stated that the
children who are Older when they first appear before the
court probably have better controls than the children who
are referred at an early age, and this in turn may help them
more likely make a successful adjustment in the private insti—
tution. It should be noted, however, that 71.5%.Of the
children in the private institutions were under 15 years of

age when they made their first court appearance.

TABLE 6

Comparison by Number of Court Appearances Before Placement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number 1 2 3 or more Totals
No. % No. % No. % NO. %
Successful 38 38 44 44 18 18 100 100

Non-successful 26 32.9 33 41.8 20 25.3 79 100
Totals 64 35.6 77 43 38 21.4 179 100

x2 = 1.50 P= (.50

 

The correlation of number Of court appearances before
placement with successful or non-successful adjustment is
insignificant. The findings, percentage wise, tend to support
our hypothesis that the children who had 3 or more court

appearances before placement would be less likely to make a

43

successful adjustment than the children who had 2 or less
’ court appearances. Of the successful group, 82%.had 2 or
less court appearances and 18%.had 3 or more court appearances
before placement; whereas, of the non-successful group, 74.7%
had 2 or less appearances and 25.3%.had 3 or more court
appearances. Although the findings in this item are insig-
nificant, it is interesting to note that 78.6% of the children
in private institutions had 2 or less court appearances prior
to placement. Considering the fact that the children must
have one court appearance to be placed, it is surprising that
78.6% of the children are placed in private institutions at
their first or second court appearance. The findings, although
inconclusive, tend to support other research that the children
who had two court appearances before placement were more likely
to runaway.

TABLE 7

Comparison by Mother's Age at Time of Placement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

37 or 46 or
38 - 45

Age younger Older Totals

No. % No. % No. % No. %
Successful 23 23 55 55 22 22 100 100
Non—successful 34 43 28 35.5 17 21.5 79 100
Totals 57 31.8 83 46.4 39 21.8 179 100
x2 = 9.17 P = < .02

 

 

5Kvaraceus, o . cit., p. 494.

44

The correlation of mother's age at time of placement
with successful or non—successful adjustment is very significant.
The findings confirm our hypothesis that the children with
the medium age or older mothers, at the time of the children's
placement, will more likely make a successful adjustment than
the children with the younger mothers. Of the successful
group, 23% of the childreds mothers were younger and 77%.were
medium age or older; whereas, of the non-successful group,
43%.Of the children's mothers were younger and 57%wwere
medium age or older. These findings support prior research
that the older the mother the more likely the child was to
succeed.6 Proportionally, the children with the younger
mothers are almost twice as likely to make a non-successful
adjustment than successful adjustment in the private insti-
tutions. If one were to speculate, possibly it could be
stated that the older mothers are not as likely to work out-
side the home and thus the children receive more supervision
at home. Perhaps this closer supervision at home makes it
easier for the children to make a successful adjustment in
the private institution.

The correlation of the parent's marital status with

successful or non-successful adjustment is insignificant.

 

6Arbuckle, loc. cit.

45

 

mm. v.

 

 

 

 

 

 

H m mo. H NX
OOH mnH H.HH ON O.m OH m.mm mO ¢.m mH h.mm Hm mHMHOE
OOH mm H.OH m H.m O O.hm Om O.b O m.mm Hm Hammmmoosmlcoz
OOH OOH NH NH O O mm mm m m 0% ow Hsmmmmoosm
X .02 "x. .02 X .02 “X0 .02 X .02 X .02
mHmpoa Ommmmomn OOHHHOEGD OOOHO>HQ Ompmummmm OOHHHOZ mppmum

 

 

msumum HmuHumz m.psmumm an GOmHHmmEoo

m H.Hmda

46

Percentage wise, too, the findings do not support our hypoth-
esis that the children whose parents are living together will
more likely make a successful adjustment than the children
whose parents are not. Of the successful group, 40% of the
parents were married and living together and 60%wwere not;
whereas, of the non-successful group, 39.3% of the parents
were married and living together and 60.7% were not. Our
findings do not support other research that shows children
whose parents are living together are more likely to adjust
in the institutions.7 Although these findings are too insig-
nificant to be given further consideration, it is interesting
to note that approximately 60%.Of the children in the private
institutions come from home situations where the parents are
not living together. It seems this may be one of the reasons
why the children are placed in the private institutions.

The correlation of the number Of natural siblings
with successful or non—successful adjustment is insignificant.
Percentage wise, the findings tend to diSprove the hypothesis
that the children with 4 or additional siblings would more
likely make a successful adjustment than the children with

3 or fewer siblings. Of the successful group, 31% of the

 

7William C. Kvaraceus, The Community and the Delinquent,
(Yonkers, New York: WOrld Book Co., 1954), pp. 482-483, citing
Prognostic Indicators of Delinquent chs in a Training School,
Unpublished Master's Thesis, Boston University, 1948.

 

47

TABLE 9

Comparison by Number of Natural Siblings

 

 

Siblings 3 or fewer 4 or additional Totals
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

 

 

 

Successful 69 69 31 31 100 100

Non-

Successful 52 65.8 27 34.2 79 100

Totals 121 67.6 58 32.4 179 100
2

x = .20 P = < .70

 

children had 4 or additional siblings and 69% had 3 or fewer;
whereas, of the non-successful group, 34.2%»had 4 or additional
and 65.8%.had 3 or fewer siblings. The findings do not support
previous research that showed children from large families

will more likely adjust in the institution.8

TABLE 10

Comparison by Family Income Per week

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$80 or $100 or

Income less $81 - $99 more Totals

No. % No. % No. % No. %
Successful 43 43 26 26 31 31 100 100
Non-successful 43 54.4 21 26.7 15 18.9 79 100
Totals 86 48 47 26.3 46 25.7 179 100

2

x = 3.67 P = < .20

 

 

81bid.

48

The correlation of family income with successful
or non-successful adjustment is insignificant. Percentage
wise, the findings tend to support the hypothesis that the
children from the low economic families would be less likely
to make a successful adjustment than the children not from
these families. Of the successful group, 43%.were from the
economically low families and 57%.were not; whereas, of the
non-successful group, 54.4%.were from the low economic
families and 45.6%*were not. Although the findings are
insignificant it appears one could state that the children
who come from low economic families are not going to more
successfully adjust in private institutions, merely because
they now have a more adequate physical situation. Rather,
it appears that children who have experienced economic
deprivation also have other unmet needs which frequently are
not met by the private institution. Our findings tend to
support other research that shows children from the low

. . . . . . . 9
economic families are more likely to be reCidiVists.

 

9Henry L. Saverson, "An Exploratory Study of
Juvenile Repeaters and Non-Repeaters“I (Unpublished Research
Project, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1963),
p. 6.

49

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. v n m 3.3 u «x
OOH OhH m.hH Hm h.mN Ow m.ON he >.Om mm mHmuoa
OOH Oh O.h O m.ON OH m.Nm ON N.mm Hm HOOmmOoosmlcoz
OOH OOH ON ON Om Om HN HN ON eN HummmOOOOm
.x. .02 X .02 .x. .02 X .02 x .02
mHmuoa OHOE no sum new gun mmOH no nuO momma
ucmsmomHm Op HOHHm OOHOHQEOU OOOHO SQ OOmHHmmEOO
NH mqmfla
mo. v n m 5.3 a Non
OOH th O.mm OO ¢.Nm mm O.NN He H.HH ON mHmuoa
OOH Oh m.O¢ hm m.mN ON m.mH mH m.m h Hummmmoosmlcoz
OOH OOH mN mN mm mm ON ON mH mH Hemmmmoosm
X .02 ox. .02 x. .02 .x. .02 .x. .02
mHmuoa OHOE no e m I N H O HOH z

 

 

8033254 0038 fits

mpOMHcoo mo HOQESZ an GOmHHmmEOU

HH mfimflfi

50

The correlation of the number of contacts with
police authorities with successful or non-successful adjust-
ment is very significant. The findings confirm the hypothesis
that the children with less number of contacts will more
likely make a successful adjustment than the children with
more or many contacts. Of the successful group, 13%.had no
contacts, 26%.had 1 contact, 38%.had 2 - 3 contacts and 23%
had 4 or more contacts. Of the non—successful group, 8.9%
had no contacts, 18.9%.had 1 contact, 25.3%.had 2 - 3 contacts
and 46.9%.had 4 or more contacts. Apparently, if a child has
four or more police contacts prior to the time of his place-
ment he is more than twice as likely to make a non-successful
adjustment than successful adjustment in the private
institution.

Speculating, it appears that a child who has many
contacts with the police over a period of time, has fewer

internal controls and this might contribute to a non-successful

adjustment in the private institution.

The correlation of the grade completed with successful
or non—successful adjustment is very significant. The findings
confirm the hypothesis that children who have completed the
8th grade or higher grade prior to placement will more likely
make a successful adjustment. Of the successful group, 45%

had completed less than the 8th grade and 55% had completed

51

the 8th grade or beyond; whereas, of the non-successful
group,72.2%.had completed less than the 8th grade and only
27.8%.had completed the 8th grade or beyond. Proportionally,
a child who has completed the 8th or higher grade when placed
is almost twice as likely to make a successful adjustment
than non—successful adjustment. These findings seem to
support other research that the higher the grade reached by
the child the more likely he is to succeed. Apparently, the
child who is in the higher grades has less difficulty in
school. Thus, he would have less difficulty in the private
school and thereby would be more likely to make a successful

adjustment.

TABLE 13

Comparison by School Behavior Record

 

 

 

 

 

 

Behavior Good Fair Poor Totals

No. % No. % No. % No. %
Successful 16 16 32 32 52 52 100 100
Non-successful 5 6.3 18 22.8 56 70.9 79 100
Totals 21 11.7 50 27.9 108 60.4 179 100

x2 = 7.42 P = < .05

 

52

The correlation of school behavioral record with
successful or non-successful adjustment is significant. The
findings confirm the hypothesis that children with "good“ or
"fair" behavior records in school will more likely make a
successful adjustment than the children with “poor" behavior
records. Of the successful group, 48% were classified with
"good“ or "fair" behavior and 52%wwith "poor." Of the non-
successful group, 29.1%.were classified with "good" or "fair"
behavior and 70.9%wwith "poor." PrOportionally, a child with
a "poor" behavior record in school is 1.36 times more likely
to make a non-successful adjustment than successful adjustment
in the private institution. The findings seem to support
the accepted belief that children who have behavior problems

in school also have adjustment problems in other areas.

TABLE 14

Comparison by School Truancy Record

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Record Excessive Occasional None Totals
NO. % No. % NO. % NO. %
Successful 36 36 45 45 l9 19 100 100
Non-successful 40 50.6 29 36.7 10 12.7 79 100
Totals 76 42.5 74 41.3 29 16.2 179 100

x2 = 4.11 P = < .20

 

 

 

l IIIIII! (I! III“ III {I IIilllllI .

53

The correlation of school truancy record with success-
ful or non-successful adjustment is insignificant. Percentage
wise, the findings tend to support the hypothesis that
children who have excessive school truancy records will be
less likely to make a successful adjustment than children
with none or occasional truancy records. Of the successful
group, 36%wwere excessive truants and 64% were not; whereas,
of the non-successful group, 50.6%.were excessive truants and
49.4%.were not. Although the findings indicate a trend it
is surprising that this item is not significant. It would
seem that a child who was an excessive truant in school would
tend to more likely truant from the open, private institution.
Although our findings are inconclusive, other research has
shown that children with truancy records are more likely to
runaway from the institution.1

The correlation of I.Q. with successful or non-
successful adjustment is very significant. The findings con—
firm the hypothesis that children with an I.Q. score of 114
Nor below will more likely make a successful adjustment than
the children with an I.Q. score above 114. Of the successful
group, 92%.of the children had a score of 114 or below and

8% above 114. Of the non—successful group, 81.1% had an 1.0.

 

0Kvaraceus, O . cit., p. 494.

 

i'l‘lil‘lllill‘li‘ll'l’l

54

 

om. v u m am. I x

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N

OOH mnH N.ON Om O.mm OO m.ON nO O.nH Nm mHmuoe
OOH On O.NN OH N.Om 5N H.ON OH m.OH mH HOOmmOOOOmIcoz
OOH OOH OH OH hm hm ON ON 5H 5H HOOmmmooom

R .02 X .02 .x. .02 X .02 X .02
mHmpoa ummq cmw3pmm OH pmHHm chO coHpHmom

(If IU
SHHEmm OH OOHuHmom HMOHOHO ha GOOHHOQEOU
OH OHOOB

Ho. v u m He.eH u «x
OOH OhH O.NH mN O.>N OO O.Nm mm m.>H Nm 0.0 OH mHMpOB
OOH on m.OH mH m.Om ON O.NN OH h.NH OH H.OH O HOOmmOoosmIcoz
OOH OOH O O HN HN HO HO NN NN O O Hummmmoosm

x .02 x .02 .X .02 x. .02. x .02 x. .02
mHmuoe O>onm OHH I mOH OOH I mm Om I mO soHOQ .O.H

no mHH no OO

 

 

HGOHHOOO OOOOOHHHOHOH SQ GOOHHmmEOU

mH HHm<B

 

l‘lll’llll‘I
lil'
IIIIIIIIIII

55

score of 114 or below and 18.9%.above 114. Proportionally,
the children with an I.Q. score above 114 are more than twice
as likely to make a non—successful adjustment than successful
adjustment in the private institution. Generally, it appears
Table 15 indicates that the children with the 1.0. scores of
below 105 will more likely make a successful adjustment than
the children with the 1.0. scores of 105 or above. Apparently,
the children with the higher I.Q. scores have more difficilty
accepting the private institutional placement and this may be
reflected in their adjustment. These findings add support to
other research that show that children with an I.Q. above 114
are more difficult to "treat."11

The correlation of ordinal position in the family
with successful or non-successful adjustment is insignificant.
The findings do not support the hypothesis that the "last
born" children will more likely make a successful adjustment
than the non-last born children. Percentage wise, the findings
tend to indicate the last born child will more likely make a
non-successful adjustment than successful adjustment. Of
the successful group, 18%.were last born while of the non-
successful group, 22.8% were last born. Apparently, ordinal

position in the family has little bearing on a child's

 

llIbid.

56

adjustment in the private institution. Other research has
shown, however, that the "last born" children were more
likely to adjust to a boys' school in Massachusetts.12

The correlation of number of timesin the detention
home with successful or non—successful adjustment is insig-
nificant. Percentage wise, the findings tend to support the
hypothesis that the less number of times the children had been
placed in the detention home prior to placement the more likely
they would make a successful adjustment. Of the successful
group, 9% of the children were in the detention home no times,
44%. 1 time, 33% 2 times and 14% 3 or more times. Of the
non-successful group, 3.8%.of the children were in no times,
39.2% 1 time, 34.2% 2 times and 22.8% 3 or more times. It
appears that children who have not been in the detention home
are about 3 times more likely to make a successful adjustment
than non—successful adjustment in the private institution.
Moreover, it appears that children with 3 or more times in the

detention home are about twice as likely to make a non-success—

ful adjustment. These findings are not reliable, however,
because of the very small sample, especially in the zero
number of times in the detention home. The trend, however,
would seem to indicate that the children who more often need
the controls of the detention home will be less likely to make

a successful adjustment in the private institution.

 

l2Kvaraceus, op. cit., p. 482.

57

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

om. v u m He.m n Nx
OOH ObH OH mN b.mb NmH m.NH NN mHmuoe
OOH Ob 0.0 h h.Ob mO O.HH O HdwmmOOOSOIOoz
OOH OOH OH OH OO OO mH mH Hammmmoosw

R a. .02 a. .02 S .02
mHmpoa HOOHO HO OH OH I mH HOOGOOM mum

Ho mnmwm NH

HOOEOOmHm um OO< an GOOHHOQEOU
OH mHmNB
om. v u m mm.m u «x
OOH ObH 0.0N Nm O.mm OO O.HO me h.O NH mHmuoa
OOH Oh O.NN OH N.Om SN N.Om Hm O.m m Hammmwoosmlcoz
OOH OOH OH OH mm mm OO OO O O Hemmmmoosm
X. .02 X .02 “X. .02 X .02 X .02

mHmuoa OHOE no m N H O HOQEOZ

 

 

meow GOHHGOHOQ OH mOEHB mo HOQEOZ MD OOmHHmmEOU

5H mHmNB

58

The correlation of age at placement with successful
or non-successful is insignificant. Percentage wise, the
findings tend to support our hypothesis that children placed
in the private institutions prior to their 13th birthday
would more likely make a successful adjustment than children
placed after their 13th birthday. Of the successful group,
13%wwere less than 13 and 87%.were 13 or older; whereas, of
the non—successful group, 11-4%Hwere under 13 and 88.6%wwere
13 or older. Although these findings are insignificant they
tend to support a previous study that has shown children
placed under 13 years of age are more likely to adjust in
the institution.13 It should be noted, however, that 18%
of the children who were 16 or Older when placed were successful
as compared to 8.9%.who were non—successful. Proportionally,
the child who is 16 years old or older when placed appears to
be more than twice as likely to make a successful, rather than
non-successful, adjustment. Other research also supports
these findings.14

The correlation of psychological diagnosis with

successful or non-successful adjustment is very significant.

 

l3Kvaraceus, Op. cit., p. 482.

l4Arbuckle, op. cit., p. 46.

59

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HOOOO. v u m OH.Oe u «x
OOH O.Hm Om mm mm e.Om He mHmuoa
OOH O.m e O.mH NH e.me OO Hemmmmousmueoz
OOH O4 O4 Ow O4 HH HH Hummmmoosm
x a. .oz K .0z x .oz
OHMDOB O.HOE .HO mHHHGOE mmOH .HO OEHB
mnueoe OH OH I OH mnpcoe O
HOOEOOOHH CH OEHB m0 HHOOOH NH cOmHHmmEOU
Om mamme
HO. v u m Oe.mH u Ox
OOH OeH O.HN Om O.m OH H.OO me e.ON O4 mHmuoe
OOH Oh mm mm O.m e ¢.O¢ Om e.mH OH Hammmmousmnaoz
OOH OOH OH OH R e O4 O4 Om Om Hammmmoosm
a. . oz m. . oz x. . oz x. . oz m. . oz
mHmuos HOHHO mHmoupwz HOOHOmHn OOHpUmOm mHmonmHQ
Hmpomnmflu HOHOMHOHU OHHOHOOZ

 

 

mHmocOmHn HOOHOOHonommm >9 OOmHHmmEOO

OH mflmfifi

60

The findings confirm the hypothesis that the children who
remain in the private institutions longer than nine months
will more likely make a successful adjustment than the children
who are released at or prior to nine months. Percentage wise,
of the successful group, 11%wwere released at or before nine
months and 89%.after nine months. Of the non-successful
group, 75.7%.were released at or before nine months and 24.3%
after nine months. Proportionally, the children who are
released at or before nine months are about seven times more
likely to make a non-successful adjustment than successful
adjustment in the private institution. These findings are not
surpirsing for the private institutions take a child for an
indefinite period of time and if he cannot adjust he is re-
leased. It is obvious, if a child can adjust for nine months
he will much more likely continue to adjust until he is
successfully released. The findings again point out the
importance of the first few months in determining whether or
not a child is going to be able to adjust to a new situation.

The correlation of church attendance with successful
or non—successful adjustment is insignificant. The findings
do not support our hypothesis that the children who attend

church regularly prior to placement will more likely make a

 

Ill I'll" 'll' I'll f IJI.‘ I [.1 l I I
II. I I II

61

TABLE 21

Comparison by Church Attendance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attendance Regular Occasional None Totals
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Successful 35 35 39 39 26 26 100 100

Non-successful 32 40.5 25 31.7 22 27.8 79 100
Totals 67 37.4 64 35.8 48 26.8 179 100

x2 = 1.10 P = < .70

 

successful adjustment than the children who do not. Percentage
wise, of the successful group, 35%.attended regularly and 65%
did not. Of the non-successful group, 40.5% attended regularly
and 59.5% did not. The findings are too insignificant to

be conclusive. Apparently, church attendance has little bearing
on whether or not a child will adjust in the private institution.
Perhaps this points out that the children who do attend church
regularly do so for reasons other than that it is meaningful

to them. Or perhaps this points out that the church is not

doing an effective job in influencing behavior.

CHAPTER V

Summary and Conclusions

This study was made in an attempt to determine if
there were certain distinguishing characteristics between
children who made a successful adjustment and non-successful
adjustment in the private institutions.

The sample consisted of 179 children -- 100 who made
a successful adjustment and 79 who made a non—successful
adjustment in the private institutions. Since it was im-
possible to control the many variables involved.with children
placed in 32 different private institutions and their place—
ment being effectuated by different probation Officers, it
was necessary to make several assumptions. It was assumed
that the children were placed in the private institution best
suited to fulfill their needs. It was assumed that the
probation officers were comparable in ability and philosophy.
And, it was assumed that the private institutions were
comparable in determination and purpose in helping the

children.

62

63

Of the twenty items used to compare the two groups,
nine items showed a statistical significant difference.
They are as follows:

1. RACE - Contrary to the hypothesis, the find-
ings showed that white children are more likely to
make a successful adjustment in the private institutions
than non-white children. Proportionally, the non-
white children are more than twice as likely to make
a non-successful adjustment than successful adjustment.

2. AGE AT FIRST COURT APPEARANCE - It was found
that children who were 15 years old or Older at the
time of their first appearance before court were more
likely to make a successful adjustment than children
under 15 years of age at the time of their first court
appearance. Proportionally, the children who were 15
or Older are almost twice as likely to make a successful
adjustment than non-successful adjustment in the
private institutions.

3. MOTHER'S AGE AT TIME OF PLACEMENT - It was
found that the children with the medium age or older
mothers, at the time of the children's placement,
will more likely make a successful adjustment than

the children with the younger mothers. Proportionally,

64

the children with the younger mothers are almost
twice as likely tO make a non-successful adjustment
than successful adjustment in the private insti-
tutions.

4. NUMBER OF CONTACTS WITH POLICE AUTHORITIES —
It was found that the children with fewer number of
contacts with the police authorities, at the time of
placement, will more likely make a successful adjust-
ment than the children with more or many contacts.
Proportionally, the children who have four or more
contacts are more than twice as likely to make a non-
successful than successful adjustment in the private
institutions.

5. GRADE COMPLETED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT — It was
found that children who have completed the 8th grade
or higher grade will more likely make a successful
adjustment than the children who have not. Proportion-
ally, the children who have completed the 8th or
higher grade are almost twice as likely to make a
successful adjustment than non-successful adjustment.

6. SCHOOL BEHAVIOR RECORD - The findings indicated
that children with “good“ or "fair" behavior records

in school will more likely make a successful adjustment

65

than the children with "poor" behavior records in
school. Proportionally, the children with the
"poor" behavior records are 1.36 times more likely

to make a non-successful adjustment than successful
adjustment.

7. INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT - The findings showed
that children with an I.Q. score of 114 or less would
more likely make a successful adjustment than the
children with an I.Q. score above 114. PrOportionally,
the children with an I.Q. above 114 are more than
twice as likely to make a non—successful than successful
adjustment.

8. PSYCHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSIS — The findings indicated
that children diagnosed by the psychologist and
labeled a neurotic reaction will more likely make a
successful adjustment than the children labeled a
character disorder, character neurosis or “other"
diagnosis. Proportionally, the children labeled with
a neurotic reaction are aboutthree times more likely
to make a successful than non-successful adjustment.

9. LENGTH OF TIME IN PLACEMENT - The findings
showed that the children who remain in the private

institution longer than nine months will more likely

make a successful adjustment than the children who

66

are released at or prior to nine months. Proportion—
ally, the children who are released at or before nine
months are almost seven times more likely to make a
non—successful than successful adjustment in the

private institutions.

It is felt that based on the above findings the
over-all focus or major hypothesis of this study has been con-
firmed. It is believed that each child does have certain
characteristics which do contribute to his successful or non-
successful adjustment in the private institution. It appears
that it is possibleto isolate these distinguishing character-
istics, and, if the other variables can be held constant, to
use these characteristics to suggest to court workers whether
or not a child has a greater or lesser chance of adjusting
in the private institution.

In conclusion, this study points to several areas
where further research might prove fruitful. It appears it
would be valuable to determine the relationships that exist
between the nine items that were significant in this study.
By correlating these items a more concise and refined picture
could be presented of the child who makes a successful and

non-successful adjustment in the private institution.

67

It also seems to the writer that it would be inter-
esting and profitable to make a similar study, such as this,
of the children placed in the public institutions by the Kent
County Juvenile Court. Although, a few definitions would
have to be modified, it seems it would be profitable to
determine if there are similar distinguishing characteristics
between the children who make a successful and non-successful
adjustment in the public institutions. It seems it would then
be valuable to compare the children who make a successful
adjustment in the private institution with the children who
make a successful adjustment in the public institution. This
type of research would help make a more refined and reliable
predictive instrument.

Further research, also, is needed to eXplain why
girls, who constitute about 25%.Of the referrals to the court,
constitute 59.8% of the court's total p0pulation in private
institutions. Possible reasons have been previously mentioned,
but it appears added research in this area might produce some
significant findings.

Another area that should be explored is that of the
relationship of probation officers with successful or non—
successful adjustment. It seems it would be profitable to

determine the successful and non-successful rate of each

68

probation officer and then compare the children placed by
each probation officer, according to the significant items
of this study. Dependent on the findings, this possibly

might improve the success rate of some probation officers.

It appears it also would be valuable to compare the
parents‘ and the children's attitude toward placement with
the significant findings of this study. It seems possible
that there might be some significant correlations between
attitudes toward placement and the significant items of this
study. If there were, this might be one way to measure
subjective items such as attitudes.

On the basis of this study it seems it also would
be beneficial to classify the private institutions into several
categories and then compare these children according to the
significant items of this study. It seems there might be
some significant differences between the children who adjust
in one type of private institution and those who adjust in
another.

Finally, a follow-up study would be helpful in
checking the validity and reliability of the current findings.
This could be done by comparing the children placed this year
according to the nine significant items. If these findings
were similar and significant the predictive or suggestive

value of the study would be ehanced.

 

APPENDICES

7O

 

 

mpmcmummn

 

HONOHWEW

 

.ocH .xz

 

coHpmmmwOO

 

oomHm .>HO

 

Opma .>HQ

 

Opmn .HHOS

 

expo :H .mmm

 

.pmc Hos .mm.OOH
OOHMHOEGD
Omunmmmn\.mmm
OOOHO>HQ

OMOO mpcmumm
OMOO Hmsnoz

OMOO Hmflpmm

.ummm .uomch
HOHHOOO» .OOHHHOE

I—INM'd‘LOKOmeW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

onpmoOOm ODBOBO HOBHMOS
COHOHHOm
OOHpumupxm OHOSBOOHO
momHmnuHHm .pmnH mHmO OHHHO
am no Omm SHHEmm Hmpmom
OOOSQOHOB mO>HHMHOm
mmmueem 02\m O umeumm

 

Hmspoz

 

Hmnpmm

 

 

mfizmm¢m mmBm

mfizmm¢m 230

 

 

mmmmmnfi mOZMMQHHmU

 

.mm\m O umepoz
SHGO Hmflpmm
tho ngpoz

mpcmnmm HHOO

r-INMSI‘mOI‘mm

EBHS mfl>HH QHHEU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b
O
O
O
m
N
H
HONOHmEm «mxm.po HHHHm
OOOHO \Hoonom .>Oum xmm OOOHm mo men GOO OEmz .Oz
"mmmmos "mama Hflmmmmmm "# ammo
Emmmm MUNm

BMDOU HHHZH>DH MBZDOU BZMM

H xHQmemfi

 

 

‘l‘ll’l. AllleIIIII‘I infilll‘
II.’.I|I

71

 

OomHm HOHUO

GOHHmpm OOHHom\HHmb
OOHuOuHumcH Hmapo

OEom OOHOOOHOQ

080m OOHOHOOO

mmwzon mo BmOHzmm>O made
Oumo HHOHOHO>O oz

MMBHmmm m0 ZOHBZHBHQ

 

OmmoHo mama

Nmfi‘mko

.>QH.QEOO comp ommOHO..mmOOD QN
Hme>GH Hmumm OOOHOHOH ~.mmo:D ON
H HmHHO no.pmm.u0¢O HmHonmo H
HOOD mo HOME

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

psmumm umpmom

O>HpmHmm

.SOOO .oom .>Hnm
.ummo :pHmmm
HOOHOO

.Hmz .oom .ummo .um

who .mam .Hoz
HMOOH>HOOH

.Hmz .esm .ooH
Amv pcmumm

.OOO .mcm 3mg
.HO HHOOHHO

.OU HOHHO ..U.U

.0.0 mo .mmo

OI-INMV
r-Ir-II-II-Ir-I

u—INMV'LOKOFGJO‘

Hflmmmmmm m0 HUMDOm

 

Hfimmmmmm mom zomflmm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmmHOO< OHHHO op aoHpmHmm 0mm msmz

 

HOQHO
OMHOOH
OHOOZ

muHHz

O

m
N
H

mufim

 

 

Amev QHHEU ZH QMBmmMMBZH mmmmBO 92¢ mm>HB¢Hmm

 

 

H.HGOUV H NHQZfiQAd

 

APPENDIX II

CHARACTER DISORDER
l. Acts out in response to any emotional tension.

2. Relatively guilt free. Egosyntonic behavior — behavior
is acceptable to the client.

3. Massive projection.

4. Insistence on self-justification and the need for
change in others.

5. Insensitivity to needs of others.
6. Hopelessness.

7. Inefficient exploitation of others.

CHARACTER NEUROSIS

 

. Acts out in response to any emotional tension.

Self blame.

Ego-alien behavior - unacceptable behavior to client.

Desire to change self.

Some sensitivity to the needs of others.

HOpefulness.

\IO\U1II>le-‘

. wanting to give to others, but lacking the ability
to do so.

NEUROTIC REACTION

 

1. Very anxious.

2. Much self blame - very guilt ridden.

3. Some awareness of the presence of internalized conflict.
4

. Inability to see reality clearly — not sure of reality
testing.

U1
0

Decision making is difficult.

6. The super-ego overpowers the ego.

72

APPENDIX III

Name and Location of
Private Institution

 

Barot House
Detroit, Michigan

Boys Republic
Farmington, Michigan

Boystown
Omaha, Nebraska

Berkshire Farms
Canaan, New York

Chapin Hall
St. Joseph, Michigan

Christian Youth Home
Grand Rapids, Michigan

Delta HOme for Girls
Detroit, Michigan

Dewing Hall
Kalamazoo, Michigan

Father Gilbaults
Terre Haute, Indiana

Florence Crittenden Home
Jackson, Michigan

Fort‘Wayne Children's Home
Fort wayne, Indiana

Gilmory School for Girls
Cosaopolis, Pennsylvania

73

Number of
Successful
Adjustments

 

0

Number of
Non-successful
Adjustments

 

l

10

74

 

 

Number of
Name and Location of Successful
Private Institution Adjustments
Girls Town 1
Belleville, Michigan
Guardian Angel Home 1
Detroit, Michigan
Harbor Creek School for Boys 2
Harbor Creek, Pennsylvania
Kalamazoo Children's Home l

Kalamazoo, Michigan

Michigan Regular Baptist Children's Home 3
St. Louis, Michigan

Muskegon Children's Home 2
Muskegon,.Michigan

Nazareth Academy 1
Kalamazoo, Michigan

Oesterlan Home 1
Springfield, Ohio

Our Lady of Valley School for Girls 3
Wheeling, west Virginia

Our Lady of Charity 14
Green Bay, Wisconsin

Our Lady of Charity Refuge 1
Buffalo, New York

Protestant Children's Home l
Grosse Pointe Woods, Michigan

Starr Commonwealth 13
Albion, Michigan

Number of
Non-successful
Adjustments

O

Name and Location of
Private Institution

 

St. Anne's Institute
Albany, New York

St. John's Academy
Winfield, Kansas

St. Peter's Home for Boys
Detroit, Michigan

Villa Maria
Grand Rapids, Michigan

'Wedgewood Acres
wyoming, Michigan

White's Institute
wabash, Indiana

Whaley Memorial
Flint, Michigan

75

Number of
Successful
Adjustments

 

1

16

Number of
Non—successful
Adjustments

 

0

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Books

 

Campbell, William G. Form and Style in Thesis writing.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1954.

Edwards, Allen L. Techniques Of Attitude Scale Construction.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957.

Glueck, Sheldon (ed.). The Problem of Delinquency.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1959.

 

Glueck, Sheldon, and Eleanor T. Glueck. Unraveling Juvenile
Delinquency. New York: The Commonwealth Fund,
1950.

 

 

Glueck, Sheldon, and Eleanor T. Glueck. 500 Criminal
Careers. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1930.

 

Kahn, Alfred J. Planning Community Services for Children
in Trouble. New York: Columbia University Press,
1963.

 

Kahn, Robert L., and Charles F. Cannell. The Dynamics of
Interviewing. New York: JOhn Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
1957.

 

 

Kvaraceus, William C. The Communiny and the Delinquent.
New York: WOrld Book Company, 1954.

McNemar, Quinn. Psychological Statistics. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1949.

 

Norman, Sherwood. The Detention of Children in Michigan.
New York: National Probation and Parole Association,
1952.

 

Tappan, Paul W} Contemporarijorrection. First edition.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1951.

 

76

77

Teeters, Negley K., and John Otto Reinemann, The Challenge
of Delinquency. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1950.

 

B. Periodicals

 

Arbuckle, Dugald S., and Lawrence Litwack, "A Study of
Recidivism Among Juvenile Delinquents," Federal
Probation, VOl. XXIV (December, 1960), pp. 45-48.

 

Bartoo, Chester H. "Some Hidden Factors Behind a Probation
Officer's Recommendations,“ Crime and Delinquency,
V01. 9 (July, 1963), pp. 276-281.

Bates, Fred C. "Recidivism and Rate of Granting Probation,“
National Probation and Parole Association Journal,
VOl. 4 (July, 1958): PP. 251-257.

Blackburn, Donald G. "Institutions for Juvenile Delinquents,
.A Review of Recent Developments," National Probation
and Parole Association Journal, Vol. 4 (January,
1958), pp. 12-21.

 

Brook, George C. "High School Drop-Outs and Corrective
Measures," Federal Probation, VOl. XXIII (Sept.,
1959). pp. 30-35.

Cohn, Yona. "Criteria for the Probation Officer's Recommen-
dations to the Juvenile Court Judge," Crime and
Delinquency, Vol. 9 (July, 1963), pp. 262-275.

 

Craig, Maude M., and Selma J. Glick. "Ten Years' Experience
with the Glueck Social Prediction Table," Crime and
Delinquency, VOl. 9 (July, 1963), pp. 249-261.

 

Fuhrman, Miriam. "School Drop-Outs and Juvenile Delinquency,"
Federal Probation, VOl. XXIV (Sept., 1960), pp. 34-37.

Glaser, Daniel, and Richard Hangren. "Predicting the
Adjustment of Federal Probationers," National Pro-
bation and Parole Association Journal, V01. 4
(July, 1958). Pp. 258-267.

 

Head, Wilson A. "Social Values of Coed Program Activities in

Institutions for Delinquent Youth," Federal Probation,
vo1. XXIII (December, 1959). pp. 48-53.

78

Josselyn, Irene M. "Social Pressures in Adolescence,"
Social Casework, VOl. XXXIII (May, 1952), pp. 187-193.

 

Konopka, Gisela. "Institutional Treatment of Emotionally
Disturbed Children," Crime and Delinqnency,
VOl. 8 (January, 1962), pp. 52-57.

 

Levine, Stanley. "Runaways and Research in the Training
School," Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 8 (January,
1962). pp. 40-45.

Mannering, John W; "Significant Characteristics of
Recidivists," National Probation and Parole
Association Journal, V01. 4 (July, 1958), pp. 211-217.

 

 

Millar, Thomas P., Robert J. Radman, and David Sneed.
"Program Development in a School for Delinquent Boys,"
Social Casework, Vol. XII (Nov., 1960), pp. 472—480.

 

Pazeian, Bessie. "Some Variables in Counseling Procedures
in Training Schools," American Journal of Correction,
V01. 26 (March, April, 1964), pp. 26-28.

 

Rector, Milton G. "Factors in Measuring Recidivism as
Presented in Annual Reports," National Probation
and Parole Association Journal, V01. 4 (July, 1958),
pp. 218-229.

 

 

 

Reeves, Elmer. "A Fresh Look at Prediction and Supervision,"
Crime and Delinquency, V01. 7 (January, 1961),
pp. 37-41.

Riley, Ralph J. "Who is a Juvenile Delinquent," Federal

Probation, VOl. XXII (June, 1958), pp. 20-25.

 

Schreiber, Paul. "How Effective are Services for the
Treatment of Delinquents," United States Department
of Health, Education and welfare, Children's Bureau
No. 9, 1960, pp. 1 -15.

 

 

Sellin, Thorsten. "Recidivism and Maturation," National
Probation and Parole Association Journal, V01. 4
(July, 1958). PP. 241-250.

 

 

79

Siegel, Nathaniel H., and H. Ashley Weeks. "Factors
Contributing to Success and Failure at the Highfield's
Project," Federal Probation, Vol. XXI (Sept. 1957),
PP. 52—56.

 

Silver, Albert W; "Delinquency and Socially and Economically
Deprived Yout ," Federal Probation, VOl. XXVII
(Dec. 1963), pp. 3 - 7.

 

Stark, Heman G. “A Substitute for Institutionalization of
Serious Delinquents - A California Youth Authority
Experiment,“ Crime and Delinquency, V01. 9 (July,
1963). pp. 242-248.

 

Stoeffler, Victor R. "The Separation Phenomenon in
Residential Treatment," Social Casework, VOl. XLI
(Dec., 1960), pp. 523-530.

 

Toby, Jackson. "The ProsPects for Reducing Delinquency
Rates in Industrial Societies," Federal Probation,
- VOl. XXVII (Dec., 1963), pp. 23-25.

 

Willner, Milton. "Services for Delinquents - The Picture
Presented in Annual Reports," Crime and Delinquency
Vol. 9 (October, 1963), pp. 404-419.

 

C. Unpublished Material

 

Kent County Juvenile Court. Statistical Highlights.
Grand Rapids: 1963. (Mimeographed.)

 

Saverson, Henry L. "An Exploratory Study of Juvenile
Repeaters and Non-Repeaters." Unpublished
report, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1963.

vermeer, Evert w. "An EXPloratory Study of Adjustment of
Delinquent Children in Foster Homes." Unpublished
Master's Thesis, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, 1961.

ROOM use 0w

 

 

 

 

 

 

R0053. 'JSE ONLY.-

"111111111 111111111155