An Evaluation of a Juvenile Education Program in a State Penitentiary

Abstract

A controlled study of the impact of a juvenile education program on the recidivism rates of juveniles was performed. The program involved introducing the juveniles to the realities of prison life. No significant differences between experimental and control groups in the mean number of self-reported status or criminal offenses committed during the premeasure or follow-up period was found. A finding that youths categorized as more delinquent were affected differently by program attendance compared to youths categorized as less delinquent is offered as a tentative explanation of the conflicting results of prior studies of this type of intervention.Although the adult criminal justice system has been charged with protecting society, implementing the processes of punishment and retribution, and the rehabilitation of convicted offenders, the task of the juvenile justice system in this country is more circumscribed. According to Romig (1978: xxii), the juvenile system &dquo;is clear in its authorized mission-to rehabilitate,&dquo; that is, to divert the young offender from further delinquent activity and subsequent adult criminal behavior.The ability to evaluate accurately the effects of rehabilitative efforts is essential both because of budgetary considerations and because of the potential problems associated with intervening in young lives. Unfortunately, of the 982 studies published since 1920 that were reviewed by Romig, only 170 met the essential requirements of either random or

An Empirical Evaluation of Juvenile Awareness Programs in the United States: Can Juveniles be “Scared Straight”?

“…For the current investigation, we examine these 12 evaluation studies using the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale (see e.g., Brodsky, 1970;Buckner & Chesney-Lind, 1983;Cook & Spirrison, 1992;Finckenauer, 1978;1982;Finckenauer & Storti, 1978;Lewis, 1983;Locke, Johnson, Kirgin-Ramp, Atwater, & Gerrard, 1986;Orchowsky & Taylor, 1981;Serpas, Litton, & Ashcroft, 1979;Vreeland, 1981;Yarborough, 1979). For the current investigation, 8 of the 12 juvenile awareness studies evaluated are of sufficient scientific rigor (a SMS score of Level 4 or above) to determine whether they can be classified as working (Sherman et al, 2002).…”

“…Six studies used a posttest designs with random assignment to control and treatment groups (Cook & Spirrison, 1992;Finckenauer, 1982;Lewis, 1983;Orchowsky & Taylor, 1981;Vreeland, 1981;Yarborough, 1979). One study used a pretest-posttest design with random assignment to control and treatment groups (Locke et al, 1986) while one used a matched group design (Buckner & Chesney-Lind, 1983).…”

“…Only Vreeland's (1981) study of the Texas Face-to-Face and Locke et al's (1986) evaluation of the Kansas Juvenile Education Program (JEP) program included measures of self-report data. Finally, only three studies did not report postintervention data (see e.g., & Brodsky, 1970;Cook & Spirrison, 1992, & Locke et al, 1986. The section that follows presents a more in-depth discussion of the studies conducted on juvenile awareness programs.…”

“…More recently, Locke et al (1986) conducted an evaluation of the JEP at the Lansing State Penitentiary in Kansas. This awareness program was designed to be more educational and less confrontational than other prisonbased awareness programs, although some inmates did use intimidation during their interactions with the program participants.…”

“…Thirty-two male juvenile offenders ages 14-19 were randomly assigned while on probation to either a treatment group who received JEP or a wait-list control group who would eventually receive the treatment. Locke et al (1986) examined official arrest data, juvenile court records, and self-report delinquency data. A pretest-posttest design was used to analyze the true impact of the JEP program.…”