Alternative Treatments for Troubled Youth: The Case of Diversion from the Justice System

296 Pages·1990·23.604 MB·English

by  William S. Davidson II, Robin Redner, Richard L. Amdur, Christina M. Mitchell (auth.)

ALT ERNA TIVE TREATMENTS
FOR TROUBLED YOUTH
THE CASE OF DIVERSION FROM
THE JUSTICE SYSTEM
ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS
FOR TROUBLED YOUTH
THE CASE OF DIVERSION FROM
THE JUSTICE SYSTEM
WILLIAM S. DAVIDSON II AND
ROBIN REDNER
Michigan Siale Ulliversity
Easl Lansing, Miclll~~all
RICHARD L. AMDUR
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigall
AND
CHRISTINA M. MITCHELL
New York Univer5i~1
New York, New York
LLC
SPRINGER SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA,
Llbrary of Congress Cataloglng-in-Publlcatlon Data
Alternative treatments for troubled youth the case of d,vers,on from
the Justice system I Wlliiam S. Davidson ... [et al.l.
p. cm.
Includes blbliographical references.
ISBN 978-1-4757-9144-0 ISBN 978-1-4757-9142-6 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4757-9142-6
1. Juveni le del inquents--Rehabi 1 itation--United States.
2. Juvenile corrections--Unlted States. 3. Social work wlth
Juvenile delinquents--United States. I. Davldson, William S.
(William Sumner), 1947-
HV9104.A77 1990
3S4,3'S'0973--dc20 89-71154
CIP
© 1990 Springer Science+Business Media New York
Originally published by Plenum Press, New York in 1990
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1s t edition 1990
Ali rights reserved
No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retricval systcm, or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming,
recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher
This book is dedicated to
the memory of
Michael James Robinson II
PREFACE
The purpose of this volume is to present the whole story of our research
program on alternative interventions with delinquent youth. It is our
goal to describe the development of an alternative intervention model,
to examine its salient processes, to provide a test of its relative effective
ness, and to give a description of its systemic impacts. The process
described was based on the notion that improvement in our approaches
to troubled youth lies in a systematic examination of the efficacy of
innovative models. As the reader is probably aware, the history of inter
ventions with troubled youth is more a record of failure than success.
Thus, the search for alternatives is extremely critical.
The book proceeds as a detailed research monograph. The first four
chapters describe the historical and theoretical antecedents of the devel
opment of the research program. Chapters 5 through 11 describe re
search on the efficacy of alternative intervention approaches for delin
quent youth, research on the impact on nonprofessional change agents,
an attempt to integrate contemporary theoretical propositions about de
linquency causation and the effects observed, and research examining
the systemic consequences of providing innovative interventions to de
linquent youth. The final chapter integrates the findings with contempo
rary work and provides suggestions for future work.
The number of people responsible for a research project of this
complexity is large. The project described here spanned nearly a decade,
involved over 400 youths and their families, and included nearly 100
staff members. Some particular contributions are important. The cooper
ation and participation of the youths and their parents never ceased to
amaze us. The program staff of the Center for Violence and Antisocial
Behavior (the primary funders of this project) were extremely suppor
tive. James Brieling and Saleem Shah were particularly instrumental.
The intellectual stimulation of two of our mentors was particularly
important. Without the support of Julian Rappaport and Edward Seid-
vii
Vlll PREFACE
man, Davidson would never have begun this program of research. Lee
Sechrest's impact on Redner's thinking concerning treatment strength
and integrity influenced our conceptualizations and methods.
The unparalleled courage of Judges Robert Drake, Donald Owens,
and George Economy in allowing a group of social scientists to propose
an alternative to their court, to implement an experimental design, and to
provide us access to necessary records was remarkable. Without the
support of Warren Ritter and Susan Boyd, Ingham County Juvenile Court
Administrators, this project would not have been possible. The intake
division staff included Michele Bauer, Beulah Pigeon, Amy Chemyz,
John Dill, Susan Wright, John Cole, Dolly Singleton, Darryl Zwick, Fred
Bareis, Elaine McMurtry, Gilda Bordeaux, Carol Whitworth, Sandy
Venn, Jeff Venn, and JoAnn Kresky.
The several hundred undergraduate students and community vol
unteers all deserve our thanks. Many graduate students in the Ecological
and Clinical Psychology Programs at Michigan State University played a
key role. Most important, contributions were made by Ricki Kantrowitz,
Martin Kushler, James Emshoff, Craig Blakely, Julia Parisian, Jeana Law
rence, Cheryl Saylor, John McVeigh, John Jeppesen, Lynn Snellman,
John Saul, and Deb Bybee. The administrative and clerical assistance of
Rebecca Mulholland, Keitha Kasel, Mary Scott, and Lynae Wozniak was
invaluable. We could not have proceeded without the willingness of the
Department of Psychology at Michigan State University to support us
throughout.
Finally, our families and significant others tolerated our crazy work
schedules in carrying out this project and completing its write-up. For
this we are extremely thankful.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1
Historical Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
Historical Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
Houses of Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
Birth of the Juvenile Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5
Dissatisfaction with the "New" System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6
Summary ................................................... 7
CHAPTER 2
Major Theoretical Positions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9
Overview ................................................... 9
Theoretical Models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
Deterrence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
Individual Differences Models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11
Environmental Differences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
Symbolic Interactionism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15
Summary .................................................. 15
CHAPTER 3
Empirical History of Treatment Efficacy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17
The Need for Meta-Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17
Methods of the Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18
Domains to Be Covered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19
Coding Methods for the Meta-Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19
IX
x CONTENTS
Results of the Meta-Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23
Descriptive Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23
Investigator Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23
Subject Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25
Intervention Components. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26
Methodological Characteristics ................... .' . . . . . . . .. 26
Effectiveness Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27
Moderator Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30
Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33
Summary Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34
Intervention Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34
Moderators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36
CHAPTER 4
Theories of Delinquency Intervention
and Treatment Research Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39
Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39
Intervention Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41
Youth Advocacy .......................................... 41
Behavioral Contracting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42
Therapeutic Relationship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42
The Experimental Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42
Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42
Research Questions for the Experimental Design . . . . . . . . . . .. 44
The Correlational Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44
Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44
Methodological Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45
Research Questions for the Correlational Design . . . . . . . . . . .. 46
Summary .................................................. 52
CHAPTER 5
Study I and Study II: Research Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53
Study I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53
Referral and Selection of Juveniles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53
Experimental Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 55
Student Volunteers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56
Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57
Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66
CONTENTS xi
Study II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74
Sample .................................................. 74
Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74
Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76
CHAPTER 6
Study I: Intervention Process and Outcome Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 79
Intervention Process Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 79
Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 79
Equivalence of Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80
Integrity of Intervention Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81
Impact on Life Domains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 87
Outcome Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 95
Official Delinquency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 96
Self-Report Delinquency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 97
Relationship of Intervention, Life Domain, and Outcome ..... 97
Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 99
Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 99
Implications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 100
CHAPTER 7
Study II: Intervention Process and Outcome Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 103
Intervention Process Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 103
Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 103
Equivalence of Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 104
Impact on Life Domains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 112
Outcome Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 117
Official Delinquency. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 117
Self-Report Delinquency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 118
Relationship of Intervention Activities,
Life Domain Impact, and Outcome. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 119
Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 121
CHAPTER 8
Assessment of the Volunteers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 123
Study I .................................................. , 124
Method ................................................. 124
Results ................................................ , 127