Article Review
ASSESSING THE PREVENTION OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY:
AN EVALUATION OF A COURT-BASED DELINQUENCY
PREVENTION PROGRAM
Jacqueline Bergdahl, Sarah Twill, Michael Norris, and Matthew Ream
In 2002, the State of Ohio mandated juvenile courts to provide prevention for at-risk youth. This study examined official court records to evaluate the effectiveness of a prevention program administered by the Greene County Juvenile Court. A sample of 362 youth referred to the program for the years 2002 to 2009 by concerned caretakers, teachers, and police was analyzed. Con- sistent with intake goals, 81.7% of clients were referred for at-risk but not actually delinquent behaviors. Completion of the prevention program did not predict future court referrals, but neither did seriousness of referral behavior. Children with two biological parents were significantly more likely to complete the program, whereas referrals to Strengthening Families Program and substance abuse screening significantly predicted program noncompletion. Implications for policy and research are discussed.
Key Points for the Family Court Community:
� This article highlights efforts by county juvenile court to implement a secondary prevention program for at-risk but not officially court-referred youth.
� Delinquency prevention research depends on good juvenile court data and adequate comparison groups. � Evidence-based predelinquent interventions with external process and outcome evaluations should be the standard.
Keywords: At-Risk Juveniles; Caretaker and School Referrals; Delinquency Prevention; Juvenile Court; and State-
Mandated Prevention.
INTRODUCTION
In an effort to reduce juvenile delinquency, preventive programs began to emerge soon after the creation of the first juvenile court in Cook County, Illinois, in 1899 (Scott & Grisso, 1997). The Chicago Area Project emphasized cultivating conventional behavior in at-risk youth for sev- eral decades after its creation in 1932, and the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study offered pre- ventive treatment from 1942 to 1976 (McCord, McCord, & Zola, 1959; Lundman, 2001). In 1961, the President’s Commission on Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime recognized the need for deinstitutionalization of status offenders and community-based programs, which led to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 and establishment of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). Funding became available for implement- ing and evaluating prevention and diversion programs, and despite a regression toward “get tough” juvenile policies in the 1990s (Howitt, Moore, & Gaulier, 1998), delinquency prevention programs continue to be popular (Mihalic, Irwin, Fagan, Ballard, & Elliott, 2004; Bartollas & Schmalleger, 2013).
This article discusses the nature of state-mandated, predelinquent prevention and then describes and evaluates a prevention program provided by a county juvenile court in Ohio. We examined offi- cial court records for 362 youth referred to the program by not only law enforcement but also con- cerned caretakers and school officials between 2002 and 2009. We present sample demographics and
Correspondence: Jacqueline.Bergdahl@wright.edu; Sarah.Twill@wright.edu; Michael.Norris@wright.edu
FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 53 No. 4, October 2015 617–631 VC 2015 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
discuss at-risk behaviors leading to program referrals, types of treatment specified by the court, case outcomes, study limitations, and suggestions for future research.
DELINQUENCY PREVENTION LITERATURE
Studies of prevention and diversion programs have significantly increased our understanding of juvenile delinquency, including the behavioral, demographic, and familial variables associated with it, as well as trends in juvenile offending over time. While the literature describes numerous preven- tion efforts, very few of these programs have been systematically evaluated to determine if they have been both implemented as designed (process evaluation) and effective (outcome evaluation; Mihalic et al., 2004).
The pioneering work of Sheldon and Elenor Glueck (1950) showed the critical influence of family on juvenile delinquency and the importance of early behavioral problems in predicting later delin- quency and crime. Several subsequent studies have examined risk factors for delinquency and ana- lyzed what works to prevent delinquency. Risk factors include both structural influences like low family income, high transience, and overcrowding (Glueck & Glueck, 1950; Sampson & Laub, 1993) and parental risk factors including poor supervision (Sampson & Laub, 1993; Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986), parental rejection, harsh or inconsistent discipline (Sampson & Laub, 1993), negative responses by parents, and the absence of a healthy parent–child relationship (Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986).
Effective interventions for delinquency prevention include training programs for parents, interven- tions by system professionals, and school- and community-based prevention. Successful training pro- grams for parents typically include parental skill enhancement and behavioral modeling, broad-based content, at least 20 contact hours, clearly identified risk factors, clinical consideration of development, identification of socioeconomic and cultural factors, a skilled staff, and follow-up (Webster-Stratton & Taylor, 2001). Skilled staff was found important for stabilizing the educational experiences of children, identifying and treating emotional and behavioral disorders, and combating abuse and neglect (Web- ster-Stratton & Taylor, 2001; Mann & Reynolds, 2006). School- and community-based prevention pro- grams that achieved the most success included preschool or early-education programs, mentoring, after-school programs, church programs (Welsh & Farrington 2007), and home- and school-based programs (Shoenfelt & Huddleston 2006; Manuel & Jørgenson 2013).
Whether reviewing individual studies, reviews of studies with common research questions, or meta-analyses of similar investigations with weighted average effects, the vast majority of research comes from the United States, and the most effective and promising prevention programs tend to be home- and school-based. Additionally, many studies have methodological issues and/or insignificant differences between treatment and comparison group outcomes. For example, Manuel and Jørgenson (2013) in their international review found only one secondary prevention study with both high- quality methodology and significant improvement for the treatment group.
STATE-MANDATED DELINQUENCY PREVENTION
In January 2002, the Ohio General Assembly approved an amendment to the Ohio Revised Code that allowed for the development of programs for youth deemed at risk of formal court involvement (Ohio State House of Representatives, 2002). This act expanded the responsibilities of Ohio juvenile courts, while enabling development of prevention programs through allocation of federal funds and other resources.
The law mandates counties “. . . to develop a service coordination process to deal with children alleged to be or at risk of becoming unruly children. . .” (Ohio State House of Representatives, 2002, p. 1). The law requires Ohio counties to place children in preventive programs. Interestingly, a sur- vey we did of U.S. juvenile justice statutes revealed only four other states—Florida, New York,
618 FAMILY COURT REVIEW
Illinois, and New Jersey—in which delinquency prevention programs are mandated by law. Finally, the scholarly literature suggests predelinquent interventions definitely showed a preference for fam- ily- and school-based programs over court- and corrections-based interventions, so the program eval- uated here may be disadvantaged. One the other hand, the Greene County Juvenile Court’s (GCJC) prevention is consistent with the literature’s emphasis on early prevention, because children as young as 6 years old are eligible for the prevention program and may be referred by parents, guardians, teachers, and counselors, as well as law enforcement (Gidley, 2002).
From a public health perspective, the type of intervention specified by Ohio is secondary preven- tion. Primary prevention programs such as Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) are aimed at the entire juvenile population, secondary prevention tries to identify at-risk youth and target them for interventions, and tertiary prevention focuses on delinquency that already exists and tries to keep it from getting worse (Cohen & Chehimi, 2007). Secondary prevention has the potential to create sec- ondary deviance (Lemert, 1951; Dickerson, Collins-Camargo, & Martin-Galijatovic, 2012) by expos- ing children who have committed deviant but not necessarily delinquent acts to the trauma and stigma of juvenile court, often called net widening (Schur, 1971; Shdaimah, Bryant, Sander, & Cornelius, 2011). From the labeling perspective, early screening and intervention may have an aggra- vating effect, despite noble intentions, in which children accept labels such as “at risk,” “unruly,” or “predelinquent” in a self-fulfilling prophecy of future delinquency and crime (Merton, 1957; Macallair, 2001). For example, the corrections-based Scared Straight program is widely considered to do more harm than good (Lundman, 2001; Petrosino et al., 2013). Although the labeling perspec- tive has had a great influence on juvenile courts, a competing theory is deterrence, through which children learn their lesson and avoid future court involvement.
THE GCJC PREVENTION PROGRAM
In response to the Ohio State House of Representatives’ legislation, the GCJC created the preven- tion program within its Diversion Department in 2002. The principal form of diversion for all but fel- ony and drug-related delinquency in Greene County is Teen Court, a tertiary prevention program (Norris, Twill, & Kim, 2011). The focus of this research is the GCJC’s prevention program, initially funded by a grant from Job and Family Services, Family and Children First, and Children’s Services, with 1-year extensions after 2004 and a funding increase in 2008.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
As described in its brochure, the GCJC prevention program is “. . . designed to be a partnership between families and the community to assist youth who are at risk of court involvement through expanding community support, empowering families and educating children to decrease the number of youth placed on diversion or probation” (Gidley, 2002, p. 2). Services are offered to children between the ages of 6 and 17, and the program’s principal objective is to intervene before unruly or at-risk behavior escalates and requires formal juvenile court involvement; therefore, the prevention program does not accept any youth who have had prior involvement with the juvenile court. Children can be referred not only by law enforcement officials, but also by parents and guardians, school offi- cials, and children’s protective services.
The prevention program staff screens referrals to determine if program eligibility requirements have been met. During the intake process, staff members consider the child’s reported behavioral problems and family situation and make recommendations for treatment. Once children are admitted into the program, they must comply with the conditions of a prevention contract that outlines specific recommendations and rules. Recommended treatment includes case management, community service and/or restitution, Family Fun Night, mental health assessment, mentoring and tutoring, Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI), anger management classes, and Strengthening Families
Bergdahl et al/ASSESSING THE PREVENTION OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY 619
Program (SFP). Outcomes for these program recommendations are examined later in Table 5 and descriptions of each type of treatment follows.
EXPLANATION OF PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
This section describes the types of treatment that could be recommended for children. Multiple program recommendations could be made for any particular child.
Case management was a common recommendation in case files. After consulting GCJC staff, we determined that this was a catch-all category for prevention candidates who were not specifically referred to other program interventions. Community service may be recommended to promote pro- social behaviors or to make restitution, in which case the number of hours is determined by the amount of restitution owed, at $6.00 for each hour of service. Family Fun Night involves a Wednes- day dinner and game night in the GCJC building and is designed to improve pro-social behavioral interactions among family members. Mentoring and tutoring programs are offered by the court as well as by schools, churches and Big Brothers Big Sisters of America. SASSI uses a one-page sub- stance abuse screening and, based on the score, this can lead to recommendations for treatment from county mental health agencies.
The SFP is identified as “promising” by OJJDP and sequentially counsels children and their care- takers separately, together, and in groups of multiple families (Mihalic et al., 2004; Kumpfer, Xie, & Driscoll, 2012). GCJC uses two forms of SFP based on the ages of the youth involved: Program I is for children aged 5–10 and Program II is for children aged 10–14. Each program meets weekly for 7 consecutive weeks, for 2 hours per week. Parents and youth meet separately with their facilitators to learn communication skills for the first hour and then together as a family for the second hour to practice the skills they just learned. Contracts are voided if the children and families fail to complete the specified recommendations or are otherwise uncooperative, and dropouts may be referred to the formal juvenile court if their behavior warrants it.
This article examines the relationships between behaviors and characteristics leading to program referrals, treatment types, and case outcomes for youth referred to the program in order to determine what predicts future court contact.
METHOD
RESEARCH SAMPLE
All prevention program cases available in juvenile court records from the program’s inception on March 1, 2002, through January 1, 2009, were coded and entered into a data set using SPSS statisti- cal software. Variables of interest included demographic information (sex, race, age, family situation, number of siblings), source of referral, behaviors that led to the referral, court recommendations for clients, and case outcomes. Each case was assigned a three-digit code for confidentiality require- ments and reference purposes.
Table 1 describes the referral source, family situation, and case outcome and what is included in each category of these variables. There are four sources of referrals to the program (family, school, parent and school jointly, and community), four family situations of the children referred (two bio- logical parents, single biological parent, biological parent and partner, and other), and four possible client outcomes (completion with no further court referral, completion with further court referral, fail- ure to complete with no further court referral, failure to complete with further court referral).
The majority of subjects were male (61.9%), White (87.2%), and between the ages of 12 and 14 (52.8%). The ages of referred youth ranged from 5 to 19 years, and the median and modal age for referrals was 12 years. Roughly a third (34.2%) were 11 or younger and 13.1% were 15 or older.
620 FAMILY COURT REVIEW
Missing data were a problem. Case files missing both staff recommendations and case outcome ranged from 12.1% for 2002 data to 44.4% for 2008, with no consistent trend. The percentage of cases with crucial missing data varied from year to year, but on average, almost a quarter of cases had to be omitted for each year of the program’s operation. Some of the missing data can be attrib- uted to several revisions to the intake form during the 7-year period that produced the data analyzed here. Additionally, referrals to the program came from different sources—parents, teachers, school counselors, and law enforcement—in itself a source of variability. Another reason for incomplete records might be court staff prioritizing paperwork for formally adjudicated delinquency cases and lack of oversight by administrators for the data collection process.
A total of 510 case files were initially coded, after which 96 cases missing both intervention rec- ommendations and client outcomes were dropped from the analysis, as were 51 cases missing client outcomes, resulting in a sample of 362 cases.
DATA ANALYSIS
Chi-square statistics were used to analyze the bivariate relationships between case outcome (the dependent variable) and all independent variables. Cases were removed or variable categories were collapsed to ensure that the assumptions about cell size were met. The dependent variable of case outcome was dichotomized into successfully completed versus not successfully completed for multi- variate analysis. Logistic regression analysis was run separately for demographic variables,
Table 1 Coding for Referral Source, Family Situation and Case Outcomes
Variable Name and categories Categories include
Referral Source: Family Father, mother, father & mother, adoptive parent(s) and grandparent School School official Parent & School Parent and school official Community Prevention staff, diversion director, child & family counselor, probation
officer, Children Service Board, police and school & police Family Situation:
Two biological parents Natural mother & father or parents with joint custody Single biological parent Mother or father Biological parent & partner Natural mother & step parent/boyfriend or natural father & step parent/
girlfriend Other Grandparent(s), aunt/uncle, foster care, adoptive parents or guardian
Case Outcome: Successful completion without later court
involvement Successful completion of diversion program with no later court
involvement indicated in record Successful completion with later court
involvement Successful completion of diversion program with: -later return to diversion program with new charge -later traditional juvenile court -later Teen court -re-enrollment into Prevention -later court involvement not otherwise specified
Unsuccessful completion with no later court involvement
Unsuccessful completion with no later court involvement indicated in record:
-did not complete Strengthening Families -did not complete mental health assessment
Unsuccessful completion with later court involvement
Unsuccessful completion with formal charge: -sent to diversion program -sent to traditional juvenile court -sent to Teen court -later formal charge not specified
Bergdahl et al/ASSESSING THE PREVENTION OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY 621
instigating behaviors, and recommendations. Forward logistic regression was used to select which of these independent variables best predicted the dependent variable. And finally, the enter method was used to build the simplest model to predict the dependent variable.
Of the youth referred to the prevention program, 98.3% agreed to participate, 0.3% declined, and 1.4% had missing data for this variable. As it is an elective program, those who declined to partici- pate had no further court involvement unless arrested for official delinquency. The three children and their families who volunteered for the prevention program a second time with no formal court referral were an exception.
Table 2 is a cross-tabulation of source of referral by program outcome. School officials referred the majority of clients in the sample, 33.1% of accepted cases. Referrals from concerned caretakers (parents, grandparents, or other guardians) were 19.1% of cases, and 5.5% were referred jointly by school officials and parents. Other actors in the community (police, police and schools jointly, and juvenile court staff) referred 6.9% of clients. These percentages should be interpreted with caution because the source of referral was missing for 35.4% of the 362 cases.
Chi-square statistics were used to analyze the bivariate relationships between case outcome as a dependent variable and family background type as an independent variable in Table 3. Cases were removed or variable categories were collapsed to ensure that the assumptions about cell size were met. In Table 2, source of referral was not a statistically significant predictor of program completion or later court involvement.
In Table 3, the largest proportion of clients came from families with only a single biological par- ent (35.1%), while 19.1% came from a home with two biological parents, and 15.7% were from a home with one biological parent and a partner. Two- biological-parent families had the highest per- centage of program completion (60.9%); followed by other nonfamily, which included foster care (n 5 1), adoptive parents (n 5 11), and guardians (n 5 2) with 56.2% completion; followed by those with an unknown family situation (53.3% completion) and one biological parent (45.6% completion).
Ten at-risk behaviors were coded and entered as potential independent variables into Table 4: poor school performance, disrespect of parents, shirking chores, school detention, school disruption, lying, stealing, temper tantrums or outbursts, fighting with siblings, and destructive behavior. Most problem behaviors likely occurred at home, such as disrespect of parents (63.4%), shirking chores (14.1%), and fighting with siblings (11.4%), or at school, such as poor performance (45.9%), disrup- tion (26.6%), and detention (17.7%).
For other problem behaviors, the location was not suggested by the category of behavior: destruc- tive behavior caused 18.3% of referrals, temper tantrums/outbursts accounted for 19.9% of referrals, while lying accounted for 12.7%. Stealing led to 13.0% of referrals, and other rarer and more serious norm violations tended to accrue in an “Other, please specify” category not shown in Table 4: drug
Table 2 Source of Referral by Program Outcomes
Program Outcome Family School Parent & school Community Unknown v2
Completed: no 27.5% 30.0% 30.3% 28.0% 29.7% 10.020 court involvement n519 n536 n56 n57 n538 Completed: later 23.2% 20.8% 25.0% 24.0% 26.6% court involvement n516 n525 n55 n56 n534 Incomplete: no 30.4% 23.3% 40.0% 28.0% 18.8% court involvement n521 n528 n58 n57 n524 Incomplete: later 18.8% 25.8% 5.0% 20.0% 25.0% court involvement n513 n531 n51 n55 n532 Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001
622 FAMILY COURT REVIEW
use (3.3%), runaway (1.1%), mental health issues (0.6%), physical violence (0.3%), hitting parents (0.3%), and curfew violation (0.3%). Although Table 4 is a cross-tabulation of referral behaviors by program outcomes, none of the instigating behaviors had a significant effect on the four possible out- come combinations of program completion and later court involvement.
Table 5 shows case recommendations by program outcomes. In Table 5, eight recommendations were coded as present or absent: case management, community service, Family Fun Night, mental health assessment, mentor/tutor program, SASSI, anger management, and SFP. Overall, only 53.0% of participants completed the prevention program; this is disappointing, but most referrals were for predelinquent behavior and participation was entirely voluntary. Three recommendations signifi- cantly reduced program completion: only 28% of children referred for SASSI completed the program (p 5 .023); anger management participants had a 47% completion rate (p 5 .042), and only 46% of children referred to SFP were completers (p 5 .000). Referrals for substance abuse have had signifi- cant attrition effects in previous research (Bartollas & Schmalleger, 2013). SFP is considered an effective intervention for high-risk families (Kumpfer et al., 2012), so it is not known from this result whether the families were too dysfunctional to accept the treatment, SFP was not effectively adminis- tered by the juvenile court, or if other factors were present. Anger management was statistically sig- nificant in bivariate analysis, but was not in multivariate analysis and so was dropped in the final model.
More than half (55.2%) of those who completed a prevention program had no later court involve- ment compared to 51.8% of those who did not complete their program, but this difference did not achieve statistical significance.
For those who attended the intake meeting and elected to participate in the program, staff recom- mendations included case management (55.7%), SFP (55.4%), anger management classes (22.9%), mental health assessment (15.2%), Family Fun Night (13.9%), mentoring and/or tutoring (6.9%), drug and/or alcohol screening (6.9%), and community service (4.7%).
Forward logistic regression was conducted to determine which independent variables were predic- tors of successful completion of the diversion program. The independent variables entered into the model included: demographic variables (person of color, gender, age, number of siblings, referral source, and family situation), instigating behaviors (poor school performance, disrespect of parents, shirking chores, school detention, school disruption, lying, stealing, temper tantrums or outbursts, fighting with siblings, and destructive behavior) and recommendations (case management, commu- nity service, Family Fun Night, mental health assessment, mentor/tutor program, SASSI, anger man- agement and SFP). The logistic regression model is shown in Table 6.
Prevention program participant’s family situation was statistically significant when tested by chi- square (see Table 3) but logistic regression analyzes each category separately for this type of
Table 3 Family Situation of Referral by Program Outcomes
Program Outcome
Two biological parents
Single biological parent
Biological parent & partner
Other non -family Unknown v2
Completed: no 34.8% 27.6% 29.8% 28.1% 27.3% 21.51* court involvement n524 n535 n517 n59 n521 Completed: later 26.1% 23.6% 15.8% 28.1% 26.0% court involvement n518 n530 n59 n59 n520 Incomplete: no 29.0% 22.8% 33.3% 31.2% 13.0% court involvement n520 n529 n519 n510 n510 Incomplete: later 10.1% 26.0% 21.1% 12.5% 33.8% court involvement n57 n533 n512 n54 n526 Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001
Bergdahl et al/ASSESSING THE PREVENTION OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY 623
T a
b le
4 In
st ig
at in
g B
eh av
io rs
b y
P ro
g ra
m O
u tc
o m
es
% Y
es P
o o r
S ch
o o l
P er
fo rm
a n ce
D is
re sp
ec t
o f
P a re
n ts
S h ir
ki n g
C h o re
s S ch
o o l
D et
en ti
o n
S ch
o o l
D is
ru p ti
o n
L yi
n g
S te
a li
n g
T em
p er
T a n tr
u m
o r
O u tb
u rs
t
F ig
h ti
n g
w it
h S ib
li n g s
D es
tr u ct
iv e
B eh
a vi
o r
C o m
p le
te d :
N o
C o u rt
In v o lv
em en
t
2 8 .9
% 2 6 .6
% 2 5 .5
% 2 1 .9
% 2 6 .0
% 3 4 .8
% 2 7 .7
% 2 6 .4
% 3 1 .7
% 2 5 .8
%
C o m
p le
te d :
L at
er C
o u rt
In v o lv
em en
t
2 1 .1
% 2 2 .3
% 2 1 .6
% 2 9 .7
% 2 4 .0
% 1 7 .4
% 2 1 .3
% 2 7 .8
% 1 7 .1
% 2 4 .2
%
In co
m p le
te :
N o
C o u rt
In v o lv
em en
t
2 7 .1
% 2 8 .4
% 2 1 .6
% 2 1 .9
% 3 0 .2
% 3 2 .6
% 2 9 .8
% 2 7 .8
% 3 1 .7
% 2 8 .8
%
In co
m p le
te :
L at
er C
o u rt
In v o lv
em en
t
2 2 .9
% 2 2 .7
% 3 1 .4
% 2 6 .6
% 1 9 .8
% 1 5 .2
% 2 1 .3
% 1 8 .1
% 1 9 .5
% 2 1 .2
%
N o te
: N
o n e
w er
e st
at is
ti ca
ll y
si g n ifi
ca n t
624 FAMILY COURT REVIEW
T a
b le
5 R
ec o
m m
en d
at io
n s
b y
P ro
g ra
m O
u tc
o m
e
P ro
g ra
m O
u tc
o m
es C
a se
M a n a g e-
m en
t C
o m
m u n it
y S er
vi ce
F a m
il y
F u n
N ig
h t
M en
ta l
H ea
lt h
A ss
es sm
en t
M en
to r/
T u to
r P
ro g ra
m S A
S S I
A n g er
M a n a g em
en t
S tr
en g th
en in
g F
a m
il ie
s
C o m
p le
te :
N o
C o u rt
In v o lv
em en
t
2 7 .4
% 2 3 .5
% 2 6 .0
% 3 4 .5
% 2 0 .0
% 4 .0
% 3 0 .1
% 2 9 .0
%
C o m
p le
te :
L at
er C
o u rt
In v o lv
em en
t
2 3 .4
% 4 1 .2
% 2 4 .0
% 2 7 .3
% 3 6 .0
% 2 4 .0
% 1 6 .9
% 1 7 .0
%
In co
m p le
te :
N o
C o u rt
In v o lv
em en
t
2 9 .4
% 1 7 .6
% 3 2 .0
% 2 5 .5
% 3 2 .0
% 4 0 .0
% 3 4 .9
% 3 2 .0
%
In co
m p le
te :
L at
er C
o u rt
In v o lv
em en
t
1 9 .9
% 1 7 .6
% 1 8 .0
% 1 2 .7
% 1 2 .0
% 3 2 .0
% 1 8 .1
% 2 2 .0
%
T o ta
ls 5 5 .5
% 4 .7
% 1 3 .8
% 1 5 .2
% 6 .9
% 6 .9
% 2 2 .9
% 5 5 .2
% C
h i-
sq u ar
e 6 .6
9 2 .9
8 2 .1
4 3 .8
7 4 .4
3 9 .5
2 *
8 .1
8 *
1 9 .5
6 * * *
N o te
: T
o ta
ls re
fl ec
t p er
ce n ta
g es
o f
o v er
al l
re co
m m
en d at
io n s.
D o es
n o t
to ta
l 1 0 0 %
b ec
au se
m u lt
ip le
re co
m m
en d at
io n s
co u ld
b e
m ad
e.
* p <
.0 5 ,
* * p <
.0 1 ,
* * * p <
.0 0 1
Bergdahl et al/ASSESSING THE PREVENTION OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY 625
variable. The best-fitting model collapsed the five categories of family situation into a binary form with two-biological-parent family situation coded as 1 and single biological parent, biological parent and partner, other, and unknown family situations collapsed and coded as 0. There were also no referral behaviors that remained significant in the final model.
There were two recommendations that remained in the final model: SASSI and SFP. If those rec- ommendations were present, the juvenile was significantly less likely to successfully complete the program.
Regression results indicated the overall model fit of three predictors was weak at best. Overall pre- diction success was 62.8%. The Nagelkerke’s or pseudo R2 of .069 indicated the model explained about 7% of the variation in program completion outcomes.
Clients with two biological parents were significantly more likely than other family forms to suc- cessfully complete their diversion program. Those entering a diversion program with two biological parents were almost twice as likely to successfully complete than any other family form, as shown by the 1.956 odds ratio in the table. The recommendations of SFP and SASSI significantly predicted a lack of success in diversion completion. Examination of odds ratios indicated that clients referred for SFP and SASSI were about one half and one third less likely to complete, respectively.
To summarize our results, the typical prevention client was a White male around age 12. School officials or concerned caretakers made the most referrals. Acts of disrespect toward parents and poor school performance were the most common referral behaviors, and case management and SFP were the most common recommendations by staff. Only 53% of participants successfully completed the program, but completion/noncompletion did not predict future court involvement. Multivariate anal- ysis showed that children coming from homes with two biological parents were almost twice as likely to complete the program than those with other family types, and recommendations for SFP and SASSI modestly but significantly predicted program noncompletion.
DISCUSSION
Juveniles with two biological parents had the greatest percentage of successfully completed pro- gram outcomes compared to those from other family situations. This finding is consistent with other research showing that children reared by two biological parents tend to have optimal juvenile justice outcomes (Vanassache, Sodermans, Matthijs, & Swicegood, 2014).
Clients referred for SASSI were significantly less likely to successfully complete their diversion program. The literature is clear that youth referred to juvenile court for substance abuse issues are at higher risk of further problems and more contact with the juvenile justice system (Dembo et al., 2012; Hunter, Miles, Pedersen, Ewing, & D’Amico, 2014; Dembo, Wareham, Poythress, Cook, &
Table 6 Logistic Regression Analysis of Successful Diversion Completion
Independent Variable B se Wald Sig. Exp(B)
Two Biological Parents .671 .291 5.317 .021 1.956 SFP 2.655 .223 8.640 .003 .519 SASSI 21.151 .474 5.891 .015 .316 Constant .432 .166 6.776 .009 1.541 Model Chi-square 5 19.259
p < .001 Pseudo R2 5 .069 N 5 362
Note: The dependent variable in this analysis is successful diversion completion coded so that 0 5 did not successfully complete and 1 5 successful completion
626 FAMILY COURT REVIEW
Schmeidler, 2006). All recommend targeting interventions at those with substance abuse issues to prevent escalation of problem behaviors. The court in this study should definitely follow up on SASSI-referred clients who drop out of prevention or diversion programs (Cooper, 2009).
We found that recommending clients for SFP, intended to improve communication between parents and children, instead predicted that participants would not successfully complete the recom- mended diversion program. A literature review by Fagan (2013) indicated that family-focused inter- ventions that improve parenting practices reduce youth delinquency, violence, and substance use. Also, Haggerty, McGlynn-Wright, and Klima (2013) and Kumpfer et al. (2012) report that SFP is successful in reducing delinquent behavior, increasing academic success and reducing initiation of substance use. There could be a variety of reasons for the poor overall completion rate and the non- completion effect of family situation and SFP in this study. We emphasize that this program is strictly voluntary, whereas many prevention programs are described as voluntary when they are actually diversion from formal adjudication, such as teen court (Norris et al., 2011) and truancy court (Schoenfelt & Huddleston, 2006). Although the two-biological-parent family is now a minority of families in the United States, this traditional family still maintains significant educational and eco- nomic advantages that would optimize scheduling and transportation for the series of meetings required. We lack a process evaluation of the court’s provision of SFP and, therefore, important questions remain unanswered. Was a parenting capacity assessment done (Eve, Byrne, & Gagliardi, 2014)? Did some families view the skills taught and practiced in the sessions unfavorably? In a meta-analysis of diversion programs, Schwalbe, Gearing, MacKenzie, Brewer, and Ibrahim (2012) found that evidence-based interventions are not routinely used in diversion programs and recommend that programs offer evidence-based family interventions and behavioral programs with process evalu- ation to ensure the program adheres to proven practices. We recommend a more targeted evaluation of SFP’s process and follow-up with both completers and noncompleters to assess why recommenda- tions for this treatment predict not completing the prevention program.
This evaluation provides some insight into the operation of a court-based delinquency prevention program. Of the at-risk behaviors that led to children being referred, only 18.3% were status offenses or criminal delinquency (e.g., stealing, illicit substance use, runaway, or physical violence). The remaining 81.7% of problem behaviors were not delinquent offenses and would not otherwise have caused involvement with the juvenile court. These types of referrals are consistent with the concept of net widening discussed earlier, but in fairness to the juvenile court that provides this prevention program, it is mandated to do so by state statute.
LIMITATIONS
Our study has several major limitations. The research ideal of random assignment to experimental and control groups was not possible, and there was no comparison group other than children who did not complete the program. Missing data were a problem: even after extensive data cleaning, informa- tion was not documented for 8.6% of the case outcomes and 35.4% of the referral sources. Perhaps source of referral was missing so often because referring parties had prior contact with the prevention program and assumed that program staff members were aware of the referral source. In addition to variability introduced by multiple referral sources discussed earlier, incomplete records could be due to staff shortages, employee turnover, or overshadowing of the prevention program by more serious juvenile court cases. The relatively complete files for a previously published external evaluation of GCJC Teen Court give support to this latter assertion, but that study reported that 165 of 800 cases analyzed were incomplete in some respect (Norris et al., 2011). In the future, researchers should more closely supervise data collection efforts to reduce missing data. For example, it should be possi- ble to infer sex by looking at the youth’s name, thus reducing missing data for that element, and to work with staff to determine why some data elements were skipped over or missed more often than others (e.g., referral source, race/ethnicity, and recommendations) and to explain how it affects
Bergdahl et al/ASSESSING THE PREVENTION OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY 627
evaluation of the program’s effectiveness. For most of the missing data elements, standard statistical practices such as means replacement or regression analysis to infer values were not appropriate.
A further limitation of our study is that it was conducted in only one Southwestern Ohio jurisdic- tion. Greene County had a 2011 population of nearly 163,000 people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). Approximately 15.8% of the population was youth between the ages of 5 and 18. Over 86% of the population is White, which is mirrored in our sample. The median household income from 2006– 2012 was $56,679, which is approximately $10,000 higher than the state median. These factors no doubt influenced our findings and therefore limit generalizability. Because delinquency prevention is mandated throughout Ohio, we recommend that other county programs be investigated.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND POLICY
The literature on delinquency prevention clearly shows that very few programs benefit from rigor- ous, external evaluation, and even fewer interventions receive a cost–benefit analysis. Due to prohibi- tive costs, “Conducting evaluations of most local programs is not feasible” (Mihalic et al., 2004, p. 5). Many preventive efforts are ineffective, and some like Scared Straight and DARE can even contribute to delinquency and future justice system involvement (Lundman, 2001; Petrosino, Buehler, & Turpin- Petrosino, 2013). Preventives that do find support in the literature tend to be home and school based (Webster-Stratton & Taylor, 2001; Mihalic et al., 2004; Welsh & Farrington, 2007) rather than juvenile court–based as the program evaluated here. Recent state legislation is creating prevention programs in the schools rather than in juvenile courts (Rollison et al., 2013; Feierman et al., 2013).
FUTURE RESEARCH
Given the discussion of this study’s limitations, we suggest that court personnel conduct internal process and outcome evaluations to inform programming decisions. Special attention should be given to record-keeping protocol in order to reduce the number of cases with incomplete files. Fol- lowing up with nontraditional sources of juvenile court referrals such as families and school person- nel may yield better data. However, as cities, counties, and states continue to struggle with budget deficits, many courts are being asked to do more with less funding. For example, after this study was completed, the GCJC administrator retired and was not replaced.
Future research should compare and contrast prevention programs across the state so that higher risk jurisdictions with more minority children and lower median family incomes could be repre- sented. A potential problem for comparing jurisdictions is a lack of standardization in state-mandated prevention programs. A true control group is a challenge, considering that prevention is mandated for all at-risk youth.
STRENGTHENING THE EXISTING PREVENTION PROGRAM
In addition to better record keeping, more appropriate assessments should be conducted, and cli- ents and their families should be referred to programming that reflects the needs outlined in the assessment. Just because a service or program is available does not mean it is needed or appropriate for a youth. A more wraparound approach, taking full advantage of resources in the community, should be a goal. As noted earlier, meta-analyses of rigorous program evaluations have shown that the most effective preventions are home and school based: If GCJC has a state mandate for preven- tion, then it should act as a liaison between home-visiting agencies and county schools, under the community court model which has evolved from community-oriented policing and problem solving (Goldstein, 1990). If SFP can be faithfully and economically implemented by court personnel, then GCJC should continue to provide it. Regarding Family Fun Night, the OJJDP specifically recom- mends against recreation- and leisure-based interventions (Mihalic et al., 2004), but on the other
628 FAMILY COURT REVIEW
hand, a recommendation to this intervention may have been appreciated by low-income families, and Family Fun Night referrals did not predict program failure or future court involvement.
Eighty-two percent of the participants in this project were referred to the juvenile court for behav- iors that would not be classified as delinquent. Behaviors such as talking back to parents may be annoying and rude, but are also developmentally appropriate for adolescents developing their own personalities, values, and self-identities. Referrals for merely unruly and not delinquent behavior should result in a single meeting with the family, in which a court representative could seek to assess if children and families are better served by other public agencies.
Child serving agencies like the juvenile court, schools, and child protective services, as well as other community groups that have contact with families (e.g., the parks department, libraries, reli- gious groups, and scouting organizations) could work together to provide pro-social activities like Family Fun Nights or mentoring programs that were open to all members of the community. Many of these services are already available in the community; for example, some churches already have youth mentoring programs, and the public library has summer reading programs designed to engage children. Families who are struggling may not know of these resources, how to access them, or the benefits they provide. For example, these data indicated that, as family size increased, so too did referrals to Family Fun Night (r 5 .369, p < .01) and mentoring and/or tutoring (r 5 .242, p < .01). Caretakers of larger families may feel overwhelmed by their parenting duties and also may appreciate a free meal.
CONCLUSION
Society is struggling to appropriately meet the needs of at-risk youth, especially as demographic projections predict a higher proportion of younger people, more diversity, and more children living in poverty (Norris, 2014). It is admirable that four U.S. states, including Ohio, have passed legisla- tion mandating that something be done for at-risk children, but perhaps today’s underserved children are more at risk of negative life outcomes other than delinquency. Juvenile courts, especially those with mandates to provide prevention programming, should faithfully implement only those interven- tions with empirically demonstrated effectiveness, and make every effort toward rigorous process and outcome evaluations.
REFERENCES
Bartollas, C., Schmalleger, F. (2013). Juvenile delinquency. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Cohen, L., & Chehimi, S. (2007). Beyond brochures. In L. Cohen, V. Chavez, & S. Chehimi (Eds.), Prevention is primary:
Strategies for community well-being (pp. 3–24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cooper, C. (2009). Adolescent drug users: The justice system is missing an important opportunity. Family Court Review, 47,
239–252. Dembo, R., Briones, R., Gulledge, L., Karas, L.,Winters, K.C., Belenko, S., et al.(2012). Stress, mental health, and substance
abuse problems in a sample of diversion program youths: an exploratory latent class analysis. Journal of Child & Adoles- cent Substance Abuse 21, 130–155.
Dembo, RW. Wareham, J., Poythress, N., Cook, B., & Schmeidler, J. (2006). The correlates and consequences of drug involvement among youths entering a juvenile justice diversion program. Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse 15, 1–36.
Dickerson, J.G., Collins-Camargo, C., & Martin-Galijatovic, R. (2012). How collaborative the collaboration? Assessing inter- agency collaboration within a juvenile court diversion program. Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 63 (3), 21–35.
Eve, P.M., Byrne, M.K., & Gagliardi, C.R. (2014). What is good parenting? The perspectives of different professionals. Family Court Review, 52, 114–127.
Fagan, A.A. (2013). Family-focused interventions to prevent juvenile delinquency. Criminology & Public Policy 12 (4), 617–650. Feierman, J., Kleinman, R.M., Lapp, D., Luse, M.N., Rieser, L., & Schwartz, R.G. (2013). Stemming the Tide: Promising Legis-
lation to Reduce School Referrals to the Courts. Family Court Review, 51, 409–417. Gidley, R. (2002). Diversion prevention program. Retrieved from www.co.greene.oh.us/juv/forms/Diversion_Prevention_Bro-
chure.pdf Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency. New York: Commonwealth.
Bergdahl et al/ASSESSING THE PREVENTION OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY 629
Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-Oriented Policing. New York: McGraw-Hill. Haggerty, K.P., McGlynn-Wright, A., Klima, T. (2013). Promising parenting programmes for reducing adolescent problem
behaviors. Journal of Children’s Services 8, (4)229–243. Howitt, P.S., Moore, E. A., & Gaulier, B. (1998). An evaluation of comprehensive, community-based delinquency prevention
programming. Juvenile & Family Court Journal,Winter, 39–49. Hunter, S.B., Miles, J.N.V., Pedersen, E.R., Ewing, B.A., & D’Amico, E.J. (2014). Temporal associations between substance
use and delinquency among youth with a first time offense. Addictive Behaviors 39, 1081–1086. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, Pub.L.No. 93-415, § 88, Stat.1109. Kumpfer, K.L., Xie, J., & O’Driscoll, R. (2012). Effectiveness of a culturally adapted Strengthening Families Program 12-16
years for high-risk Irish families. Child Youth Care Forum, 41, 173–195. Lemert, E. (1951). Social pathology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Loeber, R. & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and
delinquency. In N. Morris & M. Tonry (Eds.), Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research (pp. 29–149). Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press. Lundman, R. J. (2001). Prevention and control of juvenile delinquency (3rd Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Macallair, D. (2001, August). Widening the net in juvenile justice and the dangers of prevention and early intervention.
Retrieved from Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice website: http://www.cjcj.org/files/widening.pdf Manuel, C., & Jørgenson, A. K. (2013). Systematic review of youth crime prevention interventions. Copenhagen: Danish
National Centre for Social Research. Mann, E. A., & Reynolds, A. J. (2006). Early intervention and juvenile delinquency prevention: Evidence from the Chicago
longitudinal study, Social Work Research, 30(3), 153–167. Retrieved from http://www.naswpress.org/publications/jour-
nals/swr.html McCord, W., McCord, J., & Zola, I.K. (1959). Origins of crime: A new evaluation of the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study.
New York: Columbia University Press. Mihalic, S., Irwin, K., Fagan, A., Ballard, D., & Elliott, D. (2004). Successful implementation: Lessons from blueprints. Wash-
ington, D.C.: OJJDP. Merton, R.K. (1957). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press. Norris, F. (2014, September 2). Younger turn for a graying nation. New York Times, B3. Norris, M., Twill, S., & Kim, C. (2011). Smells like teen spirit: Evaluating a midwestern teen court. Crime & Delinquency
57(2), 199–221. doi: 10.1177/0011128709354037 Ohio State House of Representatives, 124th General Assembly. (2002). (Am. Sub. H. B. No. 57). Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State
House of Representatives. Retrieved from http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID5124_HB_57. Petrosino, A., Buehler, J., & Turpin-Petrosino, C. (2013). Scared Straight and other juvenile awareness programs for prevent-
ing juvenile delinquency: A systematic review. The Campbell Library of Systematic Review, 9, 108–117. Rollison, J., Banks, D., Martin, A.J., Owens, C., Thomas, N., Dressler, K.J., et al. (2013). Improving school-justice partner-
ships: Lessons learned from the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative. Family Court Review, 51, 445–451. Sampson, R.J., & Laub (1993). Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. Cambridge: Harvard Uni-
versity Press. Schoenfelt, E.L., & Huddleston, M.R. (2006). The truancy court diversion program of the Family Court, Warren Circuit Court
Division III, Bowling Green, Kentucky: An evaluation of impact on attendance and academic performance. Family Court
Review, 44, 683–695. Schur, E. M. (1971). Labeling deviant behavior: Its sociological implications. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Schwalbe, C.S., Gearing, R.E., MacKenzie, M.J., Brewer, K.B., & Ibrahim, R. (2012). A meta-analysis of experimental studies
of diversion programs for juvenile offenders. Clinical Psychology Review 32, 26–33. Scott, E.S., & Grisso, T. (1997). The evolution of adolescence: A developmental perspective on juvenile justice reform. Jour-
nal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 88, 137–189. Shdaimah, C., Bryant, V., Sander, R., & Cornelius, L.J. (2011). Knocking on the door: Juvenile and family courts as a forum
for facilitating school attendance and decreasing truancy. Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 62 (4), 1–18. U.S. Census Bureau (2012). State and county QuickFacts: Greene County Ohio. Retrieved from: http://quickfacts.census.gov/
qfd/states/39/39057.html. Vanassache, S., Sodermans, A.K., Matthijs, K., & Swicegood, G. (2014). The effects of family type, family relationships and
parental role models on delinquency and alcohol use among Flemish adolescents. Journal of Child & Family Studies 23, 128–143.
Webster-Stratton, C., & Taylor, T. (2001). Nipping early risk factors in the bud: Preventing substance abuse, delinquency, and violence in adolescence through interventions targeted at young children (0 – 8 years). Prevention Science, 2(3), 165–192.
Retrieved from http://www.preventionscience.org/prevscience.php Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, A. J. (2007). Save children from a life of crime, Criminology and Public Policy, 6(4), 871–879.
doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2007.00465.x
630 FAMILY COURT REVIEW
Jacqueline Bergdahl, Ph.D. is an associate professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology and director of the Applied Behavioral Science Program at Wright State University.
Sarah Twill, Ph.D. is chair and professor of the Department of Social Work at Wright State University.
Michael Norris, Ph.D. is an associate professor of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology and direc- tor of the Crime and Justice Studies Program at Wright State University.
Matthew Ream, M.A. is a graduate of the Applied Behavioral Science program at Wright State University.
Bergdahl et al/ASSESSING THE PREVENTION OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY 631
Copyright of Family Court Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.