needs assesement analysis

66 Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling • October 2020 • Volume 41

Articles

© 2020 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved.

Received 04/15/19 Revised 09/12/19

Accepted 01/15/20 DOI: 10.1002/jaoc.12081

High-Risk Youth and Their Families: A Qualitative Needs Assessment

Vaibhavee R. Agaskar, Amy Albert, and Venessa Garcia

This qualitative study of 36 high-risk youth and their families identified the need for educational/career services, high quality after-school programs, behavioral health and social services, safety and violence interventions, sports/recreational activities, and sex education.

Keywords: high-risk youth, risk and protective factors, needs assessment, juvenile justice system, parental-perceived needs of high-risk youth

The juvenile justice system has experienced a paradigm shift from a punitive model toward a rehabilitation model in response to poor outcomes among institutionalized youth as well as budgetary restrictions (Mallett, 2012). An increase in evidence-based programs for prevention, early interventions, and treatment approaches will increase the probability of positive and desirable outcomes for youth involved in the juvenile justice system (Sarri, 2014). The interrelated and comorbid nature of behavioral issues and mental health prob- lems complicates preventive and intervention efforts and poses a significant problem that professional counselors are well equipped to handle (Mallett, 2012). Thus, it is imperative for professional counselors to work with high- risk children and youth who have increased vulnerability due to disabilities, trauma experiences, mental health issues, and other delinquency risk factors. These factors exponentially increase their chances to become involved in the juvenile justice court system. Although the extant literature suggests the predictive validity of these factors (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Mallett, 2012), there is a scant coverage of the needs of high-risk youth and their families, which creates a significant gap between the needs of these families and the offerings of service providers or governmental agencies. Thus, we aimed to fill this void by offering a holistic perspective of the lived experiences and needs of high-risk youth and their families.

Vaibhavee R. Agaskar, Department of Counselor Education, and Venessa Garcia, Department of Criminal Justice, New Jersey City University; Amy Albert, Haven Adolescent Community Respite Center, Jersey City, New Jersey. This study was funded by the Hudson County Department of Health and Human Services. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Vaibhavee R. Agaskar, Department of Counselor Education, New Jersey City University, 2039 Kennedy Boulevard, Jersey City, NJ 07305 (email: [email protected]).

Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling • October 2020 • Volume 41 67

For this article, we use the term high-risk youth to describe youth who are at risk, involved in the juvenile justice system, or in the child welfare system. Kingston et al. (2016) defined high-risk youth as “those who are exposed to multiple risk factors or to a high level of a single risk factor for problem behavior” (p. 132). Research has shown that youth with multiple risk factors are less likely to have protective factors, which predicts future problem behavior (Pollard et al., 1999). Risk factors are “those characteristics, variables, or hazards that, if present for a given individual, make it more likely that this individual, rather than someone selected at random from the general population, will develop a disorder” (Arthur et al., 2002, p. 576), whereas protective factors mediate or moderate the effects of risk factors (Arthur et al., 2002). Risk factors could be internal or external in nature, such as poverty, family dysfunction, violence, trauma, mental health disorders, academic problems, and unsafe neighborhoods (Mallett, 2012). Several models exist to understand both risk and protective factors of high-risk youth; however, an ecological model of risk factors based on the typology of individual-, family-, and community-level risk factors underscores the intertwined nature of these risk factors (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], 2001). Most children and youth are resilient, so few are susceptible to the risk factors that might manifest into offending behavior that leads to delinquency and juvenile justice court involvement.

Andrews et al. (1990) developed the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model of correctional assessment and rehabilitative programming for criminal and delinquent behavior. The main implication of the RNR model is crime prevention through the delivery of clinical, social, and human services to high-risk youth and adults. In a subsequent study, Andrews and Bonta (2010) identified risk and needs factors that predict criminal conduct, labeling them the “central eight” risk and needs factors. The first four factors, known as the “big four,” are (a) a history of antisocial behavior, (b) antisocial personality patterns, (c) antisocial cognition, and (d) antisocial associates. These well-studied four variables have been considered major predictors of criminal behaviors in individuals. In this article, we shed light on the other four variables, which can predict movement toward (i.e., onset and escalation) or away from (i.e., de-escalation and desistance) delinquency. Labeled the “moderate four,” these risk factors include (a) family/marital circumstances, (b) school/work, (c) leisure/recreation, and (d) substance abuse. Moreover, we examine four core interrelated risk factors that Mallett (2012) attributed to delinquency: (a) abuse and neglect, (b) mental health disorders, (c) substance use disorders, and (d) educational difficulties.

There is a similarity between Mallett’s (2012) four core interrelated risk factors and Andrews and Bonta’s (2010) moderate four risk-needs factors for high-risk youth. Family dynamics, such as a positive child-parent relationship and a tight bond, serve as a protective factor in the criminal behavior trajectory of high-risk youth (Salvatore & Markowtiz, 2014), whereas

68 Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling • October 2020 • Volume 41

noninvolvement in organized leisure-time activities and poor use of free time are considered predictors of delinquency (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). A high-crime, disadvantaged neighborhood may influence a positive parent and child relationship and expose youth to criminal behavior. Poor quality education, academic failure, underachievement, high absenteeism, and a sporadic attendance pattern have been linked to delinquency, especially violent delinquency (Cuervo & Villanueva, 2018; Lane & Carter, 2006). Due to no- or low-tolerance school policies, youth with educational issues face a more punitive approach, which leads to criminal involvement with juvenile court and paves the way for the school-to-prison pipeline (Mallett, 2016). The prevalence of mental health disorders, such as depression, bipolar disorders, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and learning disabilities, are significantly higher among high-risk children and youth (Barrett et al., 2014; Mallett et al., 2009). Barrett et al. (2014) found that high- risk youth were more likely to have a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) diagnosis based on a pattern of aggression or impulsivity or a school- classified learning disability or emotional/behavioral disorder. Weist et al. (2001) pointed to a serious gap between the mental health needs of youth and the resources and effective programs available to meets their mental health needs.

Drawing upon this risk/needs knowledge, service providers can plan interventions for high-risk youth. Although several distinct service delivery systems exist to address their needs, including special education, mental health and substance abuse, child welfare, and juvenile justice, high-risk youth share many common risk factors; thus, a systemic level of collabo- ration is needed to efficiently deal with youth and their families (Mallett, 2012). Suter and Bruns (2009) recommend a wraparound approach, which emphasizes a system of care framework, offering a comprehensive and coordinated network of services to youth with severe emotional and be- havioral needs. Such an approach aims to integrate juvenile justice, mental health, child welfare, and educational services for youth and their families.

Early screening for risk factors is a pivotal step in planning effective in- terventions and prevention of future risky and delinquent behavior among high-risk youth. Over the last 2 decades, there has been a steady rise in using actuarial screening (brief screening on a number of objective criteria that measure the outcome of behavior, such as the risk of offending) in combination with clinical screening to improve the predictive outcome of high-risk youth’s future behavior (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Considering the intertwined nature of mental health and substance health issues among high-risk youth, standardized instruments, such as the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument and the Level of Services, are used widely for screen- ing. The Level of Services/Case Management Inventory, an evidence-based quantitative instrument, and newer versions, such as the Youth Level of Services, were developed on the basis of the previously mentioned central eight risk factors (Andrews et al., 2004). The Level of Services has great

Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling • October 2020 • Volume 41 69

predictive validity to assess various domains of youth, information that can be integrated for effective service delivery, and case management skills. Although there is growth in evidence-based assessments for early screening, few studies have evaluated the needs of high-risk youth from their own perspective and by focusing on all domains of their lives.

Purpose of the Study and Research Question

The purpose of this study was to conduct a needs assessment of high-risk youth and their parents or guardians from one urban, ethnically diverse, and densely populated county in the eastern United States. The outcome of this needs assessment aimed to effectively inform the joint planning process for services and support of high-risk youth work done by the county’s Juvenile Justice Commission (JJC) and HHS. County officials recruited the first and second authors as external evaluators to fulfill the state’s JJC mandate that counties conduct a needs assessment every 3 years. Such an assessment involves a process of identifying the needs of a group of people or an organization and in turn identifying and implementing needs-based solutions (Altshuld & Kumar, 2010). The county’s needs as- sessment centered on the following main research question: What are the needs and concerns of high-risk youth and their families? (For the focus group questions, see the Appendix.)

Method

Research Design

The study used qualitative content analysis, a method that emerged during the World War II era as a distinctive analytical technique to interpret war- related propaganda material (Morgan, 1993). According to Hsieh and Shannon (2005), qualitative conventional content analysis is usually used to describe a phenomenon when there is a scarcity of existing theory or research literature. Content analysis is very similar to the grounded theory approach during the initial analytical approach, but the ultimate goal is concept development or model building rather than theory development (Lindkvist, 1981). It also can be used to compare and solicit different perspectives from two data sources (Morgan, 1993). The advantage of using conventional content analysis is that categories are directly derived from the data rather than imposing pre- conceived categories or theoretical perspectives (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Qualitative content analysis can be used to interpret all visual and verbal data, including focus group and interview transcripts (Mayring, 2000).

Research Team The research team, comprised of a female South Asian American clinical mental health counselor educator with 15 years of experience with child and adoles- cent behavioral health and a female Jewish American public defense lawyer

70 Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling • October 2020 • Volume 41

with 17 years of experience, brought a strong diverse and interdisciplinary approach. Both team members served as focus-group facilitators, guiding participants through a series of predetermined questions. The research team met weekly or biweekly throughout the research process. During the initial stages of data collection, the team spent time identifying and addressing their assumptions about the research. This process, known as bracketing, is used in qualitative research to mitigate the potentially deleterious effects of preconceptions that may taint the research process (Tufford & Newman, 2012). Both members of the research team are mothers who have helped children and youth in different capacities for a long time. Thus, taking steps toward reflexivity and knowing their biases were essential in this study. Researcher bias included knowledge of the unmet and dire needs of this population and a need for systematic change in the criminal justice and mental health fields. During the data analysis stage, the research team paid attention to their own biases while analyzing and interpreting participants’ voices or stories. An external auditor (the third author), a female Hispanic American criminal justice educator, was used to increase the trustworthiness of the data during the analysis writing phase of the project. The first and third authors have experience in program evaluation and qualitative research methodology. To increase the credibility of the research, the team used various techniques, such as negative case analysis, peer debriefing, verbatim transcripts, and prolonged engagement (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010).

Sampling Procedure and Instrument

After receiving the institutional review board approval, the research team selected all participants (youth and parent/guardians) by using purposive sampling (Creswell, 1998), primarily for their ability to provide informa- tion that reflected the needs of county high-risk youth and their interest in the well-being of these youth. HHS personnel circulated an electronic flyer detailing the focus of the study to county-funded organizations, such as com- munity mental health centers, hospitals, schools, and homeless shelters, and arranged for focus groups to be held in those organizations’ own settings. For this study, the selection criteria for youth participants were defined as male or female, in the age range of 14 to 21 years, and involved with the juvenile justice system and other youth-serving systems, such as the Division of Child Protection and Permanency and the Children System of Care. The research team and the county’s HHS decided to combine youth from JJC and the child welfare system for this needs assessment because many of these youth share common risk factors. Thus, the county could gain generic information about the needs of youth so it could allocate funding and resources. This reasoning also is consistent with the empirical literature (Mallett, 2012) and mandated by the state JJC. The selection criteria for parent/guardian participants were that they were above the age of 21 and had a child. Parents/guardians all lived in the county, and their children may or may not have been involved in a county youth-serving system. Those who expressed interest were sent

Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling • October 2020 • Volume 41 71

consent forms that described the scope of the study, procedure, and the option to withdraw from the study at any point without penalty from their serving systems. Parental consent forms were collected prior to the focus groups for all minor participants. Focus group questions were developed based on a literature review and input from county and respite center personnel. The focus group questions and process were piloted with one small group of three parents. At the time of each focus group, participants submitted a signed informed consent and a demographic questionnaire. The research team conducted nine focus groups (five youth focus groups and four parent/ guardian focus groups), each approximately 45 to 60 minutes, during the spring and summer of 2017. They were audio recorded and transcribed by a professional service. To protect confidentiality in this study, the research team replaced all participants’ names with pseudonyms.

Participants

Youth participants. Thirty-six high-risk youth participated in this study. Most of the participants had at least one contact with the juvenile justice system and had various offenses, such as sex offense, arson, curfew violations, school disciplinary offense, truancy, and possession of drugs. The rest of the participants were involved with the child welfare system. To protect participant confidentiality, group composition is not disclosed other than in the demographic information that follows. Their ages ranged from 14 years to 21 years (M = 17.5). Twenty-six (72%) were male; 10 (28%) were female. The racial makeup varied: 42% of the youth identified as African American, 39% identified as Latina/o, 8% identified as European Ameri- can, 6% identified as Asian American, and the remaining 6% identified as mixed race. Fourteen percent of the sample were first-generation im- migrants. Languages spoken in the household included English, Spanish, French, Tagalog, and Urdu. Education also varied: 89% were either in high school/alternative educational programs or working toward their general educational diploma, 6% had completed their general educational diploma, and 6% were homeschooled. Only one participant was working part-time. Seventy-eight percent of the participants lived with their parents or legal guardian, whereas the rest resided in a homeless shelter.

Parent/guardian participants. A total of 13 parents/guardians participated in this study. Eighty-five percent were female and 15% were male. Twenty- three percent were first-generation immigrants. The racial breakdown of the parent/guardian participants included 54% African Americans, 15% European Americans, 15% Latinas/os, and 15% Asian Americans. Parents/ guardians spoke varying languages at home, including English, Spanish, Urdu, and Tagalog. Almost all of the participants reported working at low- paying single or multiple jobs, were the sole providers for their families, and belonged to a working-class background. One parent identified as a single mother, three were grandmother guardians, and the remaining nine belonged to two-parent families.

72 Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling • October 2020 • Volume 41

Data Analysis

The research team made a deliberate decision to analyze parental and youth focus groups separately and then compared data between the two groups because the developmental levels of the two groups differed. To achieve immersion and gain the whole sense of the data, the research team reread transcribed reports of the focus groups multiple times. The data were read word-by-word to bring out persistent words, phrases, or themes (Morse & Field, 1995). Codes were derived by first highlighting the exact words from the text that appeared to capture key thoughts and concepts for later retrieval and resorting. Labels for codes emerged that were reflective of more than one key thought. Codes were then sorted into categories based on how different codes were related and linked; emergent categories were then organized into meaningful clusters (Patton, 2002). Categories were kept broad at the initial stages of data analysis, and major categories were sorted into smaller categories during the later stages of the analysis (Morse & Field, 1995). A tree diagram was developed to organize these categories into a hierarchical structure (see Figures 1 and 2). Next, definitions of each category, subcategory, and code were developed. All data were analyzed manually by highlighting words and using Microsoft Excel to store and manage emerging codes and categories.

Results

Major Findings: Youth

We started the youth focus group by asking participants to talk about their best quality as an icebreaker activity. This was followed by a question on the services a county can offer to make their best quality even better. Analysis of youth focus groups yielded four major themes related to ser- vices they believed the county should provide to youth: educational and

FIGURE 1

Categories From Youth Needs Assessment

Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling • October 2020 • Volume 41 73

career services, behavioral health and social services, safety and violence interventions, and sports and recreational activities.

Educational and career services. Education and career preparedness were major concerns for the youth. Each participant articulated a variety of deficiencies in secondary educational offerings, which included a limited range of vocational programs, lack of business classes, poor teacher quality, and a lack of information about how to get into the programs they were interested in or thought would best suit their needs. Most of the youth were not happy with the range of subjects available to them. They pointed to the lack of training in business, music, or other areas in which they were interested. Some talked about how little information they got about voca- tional programs. All youth expressed concern about how little they knew about the college admission process or financial aid. Jacob expressed his views about the uselessness of his education: “School teaches us subjects like math and science, which actually do not help us to get jobs.” Clinton explained that “School is not meant for everyone, but maybe if we can get training in plumbing or mechanical work then we can earn more money than a college graduate.” Mohammad reported that “County Vocational School will help you out to get a job after you graduate.” Rahim stated, “The only thing the county can really do is to provide us with better job opportunities.” Most of the youth were aware of their needs.

Most participants were particularly disappointed with teachers. Sherry criticized their competency by demanding quality teachers to do real teaching. Deshawn, who went to a traditional educational program, lamented that he would prefer learning from teachers and not just worksheets to complete at home or in the classroom. In sum, youth demanded an applied curriculum that would prepare them to enter the workforce as well as college. They were more interested in school taking a lead role in preparing them for a future career or job.

Behavioral health and social services. Youth participants focused heavily on behavioral health and social service needs, including drug treatment,

FIGURE 2

Categories From Parent/Guardian Needs Assessment

74 Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling • October 2020 • Volume 41

violence reduction, help with family conflict, and juvenile justice/criminal justice reentry services. Many of the young people talked about the need for more and better services that are more targeted toward their individual needs. They spoke at length about the impact of drugs and alcohol on their lives. Most of the youth agreed that drug abuse was a major problem in the county and that it affected their lives in many ways. David summed up his fears: “Keep kids away from negative influences.” Participants also talked about the need for services that address family conflict. They agreed that there might be a range of services that are appropriate, but expressed particular concern about police involvement in family conflicts. Mike, for example, voiced his concerns by stating, “I gather I did something stupid, but are you going to call police on your own family?” Alyssa added, “I will never want [my mom] to try to call the cops on some [one] you gave birth to. . . . I just wouldn’t understand it.” David and Mike both believed that “some problems you can work out at home, and you don’t need the police.” Their responses clearly demonstrated a need for family-centered interventions for the youth and their parents.

Finally, some participants discussed the need for better reentry services for criminal justice–involved/juvenile justice–involved youth. Some of the youth talked about increasing the age limits for benefits for homeless youth and for services that meet basic needs, such as grants for education, housing, and entitlements assistance.

Safety and violence interventions. Because safety and violence intervention emerged as major themes during our discussion of behavioral health, we decided to make this as a separate category in the final phase of the research. Most county youth reported that their neighborhoods were not safe places: “No way; it’s not safe unless you move out of the city. But some people don’t want to move” or “If you like your life don’t come outside of your home.” Most of the youth had been exposed to trauma, such as shootings in their neighbor- hood, and thus they felt unsafe. Although many youth expressed a desire for intervention from the government to prevent violence and to make them feel safer, some said that they were not comfortable with police being in their neighborhood and reported that “I don’t like cops that’s always outside. That would make it dangerous” (Keith). A few talked about safe neighborhood-based recreational opportunities as a solution. They simply focused on the need for intervention: “I just feel scared not only for myself and for like everybody . . . my little brother” (Steve). Others dealt with the violence by putting on an air of toughness and indifference. Shaquan, for example, said, “I grew up around there, so I don’t have any to bother. I am not scared of anyone. Whatever hap- pens.” Whatever their attitude toward the violence in their neighborhoods, it was apparent that this was a constant factor impacting their lives.

Sports and recreational activities. Most of the youth participants were interested in a variety of sports-related activities, such as basketball, baseball, soccer, softball, cricket, martial arts, and boxing. They also liked to visit local malls with their peers. Kevin shared, “It’s not about

Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling • October 2020 • Volume 41 75

what we do in school; it’s about what we do after 8 o’clock.” Most of the youth wanted to spend time out in the late evening with their peers in a violence-free recreational facility that was closer to their home or in the same neighborhood. Furthermore, most of the youth lamented that they were not satisfied with the equipment or supplies provided by existing sports programs within the county. Another complaint was that there were only a few facilities available in the county that were free, had a convenient location, and were open late. However, a lack of transportation or limited and expensive access to public transportation prevented many of the youth from engaging in existing programs. Interestingly, three of the 36 youth stated that they did not want the county to provide them with anything. This could be interpreted in two ways: either they really have all needs met or they really do not trust government to fulfill their needs, which could be the result of resistance to an oppressive system.

Major Findings: Parents/Guardians

We began each parent/guardian focus group by talking about the strengths of their children. Then, we focused on the service needs that parents/ guardians identified. Overall, we identified three broad themes from the parent focus group data: behavioral health and social services, high-quality after-school programs, and sex education in the school system.

Behavioral health and social services. When we asked parents in what areas their children needed the most support, most parents identified their chil- dren’s needs and their needs as parents. They also vented about the lack of care as well as barriers to seeking services. Most participants reported that their children had a variety of mental health issues, such as frustra- tion, anxiety, depression, aggression, bullying, and suicidal ideation. They also had drug-related problems. Parents estimated that at least 30% of their teenagers were involved in drugs and alcohol use. However, at least one parent noted, “My kids don’t do drugs. They actually hate it.”

Most of the parents agreed that they needed the low cost or free inpatient and outpatient services for their children for issues like substance use or mental health. Deborah, a grandmother who is the guardian of her 17-year- old grandson, lamented that “The last time my grandson was released from a juvenile justice facility, he said he was tired of his friends dying and wanted to go into a program [for drug intervention], but I couldn’t get him into one.” Similarly, Linda, a mother of a 19-year-old male, reported that many mental health and medical services were unavailable to her because her $10 per hour full-time pay was beyond the sliding scale. Sliding-scale therapy would cost her $150 per session. Medicaid services were sparse. When she could get an appointment, it would be months away, and if she missed it, another would take months to obtain. Furthermore, many of the services were far away, requiring expensive transportation arrangements. Additionally, although school counselors could be very helpful, school of- ficials often did not want to become involved with a problem child. They

76 Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling • October 2020 • Volume 41

were more interested in referring such children to outsider providers, which is very expensive. Parents wanted more support from schools in dealing with their children’s behavioral health needs.

In addition to behavioral health services for their children, parents also suggested that parental support groups would help them to understand their children’s issues. The parents believed that they would feel more supported by knowing other parents whose children had similar issues. Furthermore, many of the parents, particularly from one focus group, talked about the need for parenting education that focused on specific challenges, such as parenting adolescents and obtaining special needs services. Parents also needed more guidance in understanding the juvenile justice system, especially the juvenile court and its implications for their children. Tina aptly argued,

I think one of the hardest things is the language barrier with many parents in this area. We [she and her husband] actually sat down on so many different groups of parents who were going through the same thing and I felt—we felt—bad for them. No one is there to advocate for them.

In general, parents praised services or service providers who could speak their language and understood their culture. They also looked at their case manager or therapist as an advocate who could navigate the system with them.

High-quality after-school programs. Most of the parents highlighted the need for additional, high-quality after-school programs for their children, espe- cially teenagers, to keep them active and healthy. They preferred programs for various sports and art activities and needed transportation services. They also expressed the need for education on life skills, vocational programs, college preparation, and scholarship searching. Some argued that some aftercare services were too far from their homes. Services were needed in their own school districts. Most of the parents wanted to send their chil- dren to after-school programs that were safe and kept them off the streets. Overall, parents agreed that their young children were not safe alone on the streets due to the violence and the poor influence of other teens who were using drugs and bad language. Lisa, a mother of a 15-year-old boy and a 5-year-old boy, stated that “Here there is a lot of poverty, and I am the provider for the family. But there are no summer camp programs for kids as young as 5 years old; free services start at the age of 7 years.” There was a need for year-round services because children needed activities in the winter months as well. However, parents did not want their children playing in parks that were often overrun by drug dealers.

Another theme focused on keeping their kids busy, preferably with jobs. Paula, a grandmother of a 17-year-old boy, said, “He needed after-school programming to keep him busy, preferably stuff he can do with his hands.” Jenny reported that “You have to give kids summer jobs because many parents are working. You don’t want them hanging on the street and you don’t want them sitting at home playing video games.” According to par- ticipants, schools were not providing the resources and skills for seeking

Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling • October 2020 • Volume 41 77

jobs, and overall there were very limited job openings for teenagers. Many parents advocated for vocational guidance and advice in the school.

Within both the behavioral health and social services and the high-quality after-school programs themes, safety concerns and the need for safer transportation services emerged as subcategories. Almost all participants had safety concerns for their children. However, parents whose children attended one local high school reported that although the school was addressing their safety concerns, bullying was still a critical issue. Lori reported, “Sometimes you really can’t blame school; there is peer pressure too.” Overall, many parents demanded free or low-cost safer transportation services. Some parents reported that they could not send their teenagers to aftercare programs in the school due to safety concerns. If there was a safer and cheaper transportation service, especially after dark, they might be able to send their teenagers to out-of-district aftercare services.

Sex education. Finally, during our focus group with parents/guardians of youth in a sex offender program, every participant asked for more interven- tion from the government or school system in the area of sex education. Although we recognized the heightened awareness that these parents/ guardians might have had about sex and sexuality given their children’s crimes, overall, parents of youth in a sex offender program emphasized the role of the school to give sex education to their children. All four parents/ guardians from the sex offender focus group agreed that accuracy and the source of information about sexual health are paramount. Thus, parents believed that the school should reinforce what parents were trying to teach at home. Parents also noted that, along with sex education, treatment was needed for sex offenders and victims.

Discussion

This study uniquely focused on the community needs at the county level from the perspective of youth and parents/guardians. It is remarkable to notice the similarities in the perceived needs of both the parents and the youth. Both groups identified needs in the quality of education and career or job preparation. After-school activities, especially those in safe areas, were another major concern for both youth and parents/guardians. Both groups expressed a need for more affordable and appropriate behavioral health services. Parents/guardians were more likely to focus on behavioral health services and parental support groups, whereas youth placed more focus on social support services and family interventions. Both groups placed a lot of emphasis on safety and violence in their neighborhoods as well as affordable transportation to services. Parents/guardians added the need for sex education for their children who were sex offenders. The overall results of this needs assessment were consistent with the existing literature on the risks/needs factors of high-risk youth (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Mallett, 2012; HHS, 2001). In sum, participants’ needs are rooted in Andrews and

78 Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling • October 2020 • Volume 41

Bonta’s (2010) moderate four risk factors: family/marital circumstances (family conflict), school/work, leisure/recreation, and substance abuse. Similarly, their needs are consistent with three of four core interrelated risk factors identified by Mallett (2012): mental health disorder, substance use disorders, and educational difficulties. Our results also echoed the ecological model of risk factors conceptualized by HHS (2001), suggesting that professional counselors need to provide services at the individual, family, and community level. Moreover, our needs assessment results are consistent with the risk and need factors assessed by the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory tools, which are considered primary evidenced-based measures for high-risk youth (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Thus, there is a need for services in all the above-mentioned domains of a youth’s life. The results of this needs assessment will help the county to allocate its resources and services to the areas identified by parents and youth, hopefully allowing it to mitigate future risk and needs factors for high-risk youth. Findings might also help to diminish the school-to-prison pipeline phenomenon (Mallett, 2016). However, no other studies were found to compare the needs assessment of high-risk youth mandated by JJC with any other state. Furthermore, the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory are quantitative assessment tools, and a detailed literature review yielded no qualitative needs assessment for high-risk youth. Considering the existing literature and our findings, we focus on two themes based on their importance to professional counselors.

First, similar to much of the research, educational and career-related services were identified as primary needs. Most youth participants criticized the poor quality of their education and the limited range of educational and vocational training and opportunity (Cuervo & Villanueva, 2018; Lane & Carter, 2006). Thus, we strongly concur with Lane and Carter (2006) and advocate for empirically validated academic intervention at all education levels, a curriculum offering meaningful career and vocational exploration opportunities, a coordinated system of services and support for youth, and stronger support for family participation.

Second, most of the youth indicated that substance use is a big problem in their community. Many parents/guardians also identified that their children had various mental health and substance use problems. Furthermore, they argued that the county had limited or unavailable mental health services, a finding consistent with that of Weist et al. (2001), who identified a gap in mental health resources for youth and their families. Our parental group also discussed their transportation needs and expensive mental health services due to limited medical coverage as barriers to care. They wanted schools to play a major role in delivering mental health services. These findings also are consistent with the existing literature (Weist, 1997; Weist et al., 2001), suggesting that we need to pay special attention to mental and substance use services in the community and at school, especially for high-risk students.

Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling • October 2020 • Volume 41 79

Implications for Counselors

This study has various implications for professional counselors, espe- cially addiction and offender counselors who are working with high-risk youth. We hope that the data derived from this needs assessment and knowledge of risk and needs factors will help professional counselors to conceptualize the behavior of youth from a holistic perspective and to plan evidence-based interventions. The results of the study emphasize the role of school counselors in academics and career planning (American School Counseling Association, 2012). Findings of this needs assessment will guide government agencies in allocating funding and encourage collaboration among various youth service providers, such as schools, community centers, hospitals, child welfare organizations, and the juve- nile justice system.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study has several limitations, including the limited number of parent/guardian participants for the focus groups and the lower repre- sentation of female youth. Limitations in sample size and the purposive sampling method prohibit any transferability of findings and generaliz- ability of results. The inclusion of service providers would have helped to triangulate the data and provide more comprehensive results. Ad- ditionally, even if researchers took several steps, such as the use of an external auditor, peer debriefing, and verbatim transcripts to reduce researcher bias, bias still remains a concern for qualitative studies. A follow-up study with a mixed-method design would be ideal to identify any changes in the population’s needs, as would a comparative needs assessment study between the study county and other counties in the state or across the country.

Conclusion

Overall, parent/guardian and youth focus group data shared common themes around services the county needs to offer to reduce risk factors for youth and their families. Both focus group data sets led to the conclusion that the county needs to offer more prevention- and intervention-based programs for behavioral health issues (mental health and substance use disorders) and enriched education- and career-related activities. Finally, the results clearly suggest that the county needs to focus on building safer communities and transportation services. In sum, we recommend adoption of the wraparound approach, which will strengthen collaboration among education, mental health, physical health, criminal justice, and public health systems to promote the holistic development of youth (Mallett, 2012; Suter & Bruns, 2009), thereby diminishing the school-to-prison pipeline phenomenon (Mallett, 2016).

80 Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling • October 2020 • Volume 41

References

Altshuld, J. W., & Kumar, D. D. (2010). Needs assessment: An overview. Sage Publications. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). American School Counselor Association. (2012). ASCA National Model: A framework for school coun-

seling programs. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct. Anderson. Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering

psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(1), 19–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854890017001004 Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J. L., & Wormith, J. S. (2004). Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/

CMI): An offender assessment system, user’s manual. Multi-Health Systems. Arthur, M. W., Hawkins, D., Pollard, J. A., Catalano, R. F., & Baglioni, A. J. (2002). Measuring

risk and protective factors for use, delinquency, and other adolescent problem behaviors: The Communities That Care Youth Survey. Evaluation Review, 26(6), 575–601. https://doi. org/10.1177/0193841X0202600601

Barrett, D. E., Katsiyannis, A., Zhang, D., & Zhang, D. (2014). Delinquency and recidivism: A multicohort, matched-control study of the role of early adverse experience, mental health problems, and disabilities. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 22(1), 3–15. https://doi. org/10.1177/1063426612470514

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Sage. Cuervo, K., & Villanueva, L. (2018). Prediction of recidivism with the Youth Level of Service/

Case Management Inventory (Reduced Version) in a sample of young Spanish offender. Inter- national Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(11), 3562–3580. https://doi. org/10.1177/0306624X17741250

Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

Kingston, B. E., Mihalic, S. F., & Sigel, E. J. (2016). Building an evidence-based multitiered system of supports for high-risk youth and communities. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 86(2), 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000110

Lane, K. L., & Carter, E. W. (2006). Supporting transition-age youth with and at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders at the secondary level: A need for further inquiry. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 14 (2), 66–70. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F10634266060140020301

Lindkvist, K. (1981). Approaches to textual analysis. In K. E. Rosengren (Ed.), Advances in content analysis (pp. 23–41). Sage.

Mallett, C. A. (2012). Linking disorders to delinquency: Treating high-risk youth in the juvenile justice system. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Mallett, C. A. (2016). The school-to-prison pipeline: A comprehensive assessment. Springer Publishing. Mallett, C. A., Stoddard, D. P., & Seck, M. M. (2009). Predicting juvenile delinquency: The nexus of

childhood maltreatment, depression and bipolar disorder. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 19, 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.737

Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), Article 20. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-1.2.1089

McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (7th ed.). Pearson. Morgan, D. L. (1993). Qualitative content analysis: A guide to paths not taken. Qualitative Health

Research, 3(1), 112–121. Morse, J. M., & Field, P. A. (1995). Qualitative research methods for health professionals. Sage Publications. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage. Pollard, J. A., Hawkins, J. D., & Arthur, M. W. (1999). Risk and protection: Are both necessary to

understand diverse behavioral outcomes in adolescence? Social Work Research, 23(3), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/23.3.145

Salvatore, C., & Markowitz, M. W. (2014). Do life course transitions and social bonds influence male and female offending differently? Gender contrasts and criminality. Deviant Behavior, 35(8), 628–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2013.867727

Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling • October 2020 • Volume 41 81

Sarri, R. (2014). Juvenile justice: Overview. In Encyclopedia of social work. https://oxfordre.com/ socialwork/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.001.0001/acrefore-9780199975839-e-572

Suter, J., & Bruns, E. (2009). Effectiveness of the wraparound process for children with emo- tional and behavioral disorders: A meta-analysis. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 12, 336–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-009-0059-y

Tufford, L., & Newman, P. (2012). Bracketing in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 11(1), 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325010368316

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Youth violence: A report of the surgeon general.

Weist, M. D. (1997). Expanded school mental health services: A national movement on prog- ress. Advances in Clinical Child Psychology, 19, 319–352.

Weist, M. D., Lowie, J. A., Flaherty, L. T., & Pruitt, D. (2001). Collaboration among the educa- tion, mental health, and public health systems to promote youth mental health. Psychiatric Services, 52(10), 1348–1351. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.52.10.1348

APPENDIX

Focus Group Questions

Questions for Parents/Guardians

1. What safety concerns do you have for your children? 2. What type of programs or services would make them safer? 3. Does your child act out behaviorally or show signs of depression, anxiety, etc.? Probe: If yes, have they ever received services to address these issues? What were they? 4. What does your child or you need to address these issues? 5. What does your child do after school or on the weekends? Probe: What type of job do they have (if they are employed)? What programs do they

attend? What do you/they like/dislike about them? 6. What type of youth programs would you like to see in your community that you don’t have

now? 7. What are your or your child’s plans for their future? Probe: Do they want to go to college, trade school, etc.? What type of job do they want? 8. What does your child need to achieve this goal? 9. What is your child’s strongest quality? 10. What types of programs could help them make it even better? 11. How have you or your family been impacted by alcohol or illegal drug use? 12. What types of programs would help address these issues?

Questions for Youth

1. What is your best quality? 2. What types of programs could support you to make your best quality even better? 3. What do you do after school and on the weekends? Probe: What is your job (if employed)? What programs do you attend? What do you like/

dislike about them? 4. What types of youth programs would you like to see in your community that you don’t have

now? 5. When you think about your future, what would you like to do for work? 6. What do you need to achieve this goal? 7. Do you and your friends feel safe in your community? Probe: What specific things make you feel safe/unsafe? 8. What types of programs or services would help you feel safer? 9. How have you or your family been impacted by alcohol or illegal drug use? 10. What types of programs would help address these issues? 11. What other programs or services do young people need to be successful?