|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this study by Finckenauer and Kochis was to provide an evaluative and descriptive case study of a Pennsylvania program for juvenile offenders which utilized and operationalized a criminal personality theoretical framework.
METHODOLOGY:
Interviews with the 35 staff members at Weaversville, a secure treatment facility for 22 violent juvenile offenders aged 15-18 years, were utilized to observe the actualization of the criminal personality theory. Criminal personality theory is defined as a perspective which assumes that delinquency is the result of erroneous thinking methods which can be challenged and changed through the teaching of new skills and new ways of reasoning, thinking and acting. A sample of 47 cases of boys from 1979-1982 at the Weaversville facility were selected for descriptive data. These 47 cases were divided into four categories by staff members: currently in-program, successful graduate, marginally successful graduate, and failure. The problems with further dividing such a small sample were addressed. The fourteen variables used to compare the boys in the four groups were: age, race, IQ, any psychological treatment, type of psychological treatment, mental health system diagnosis, intact family, child abuse, neglect, committing offense to Weaversville, runaway/escapes, age at first offense, number of program interventions, and length of time in the program. Frequencies and percentages were used to analyze the data.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
The average age of the subjects at Weaversville was 16.4 years; 35 of the 47 were white; most were lower-middle or working class; most had an average intelligence (mean IQ score was 96.3); most had drug and alcohol histories; 31 of 47 came from broken homes; 15 of 47 had experienced child abuse; 28 of 47 experienced neglect as children; 10 of 47 were labeled as learning disabled. Twenty of the youth were committed to Weaversville for crimes against persons; 19 for property crimes. The more offenses a boy had, the more likely these crimes were against persons. Thirty-seven had been in at least one other correctional facility. Only two youths had documented mental health problems; 13 had previous psychological treatment; and 6 had attempted suicide. An analysis of the four categories of juveniles revealed little variance in the ages, races or IQs of subjects. Tentative conclusions were made negatively linking mental health problems with likelihood of success in the program. The lack of comparison groups, however, was stressed as a weakness. The successful group were more likely to be neglected as children than the failure group; little difference was found between success rates and the offense that resulted in commitment to Weaversville; boys in all four groups had escape/runaway histories; boys who failed the program had slightly lower stays in the program. Two internal studies conducted at Weaversville found that between 1976 and 1980 of those who had completed the program, there was a 48% success rate of not being re-arrested during the next year; and during 1981 of those who had completed the program, there was a 66% success rate of not being re-arrested during the next 6 month period. It, again, was stressed that no comparison groups were used in these studies. This study concluded that it is extremely difficult to treat "hardcore" juvenile offenders, but that Weaversville appeared to be in the process of successfully implementing a program based on criminal personality theory.
AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS:
The authors stressed the need for more detailed program evaluations of such juvenile facilities as Weaversville, especially using comparison groups. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
KW - Pennsylvania
KW - Theory
KW - Treatment Program
KW - Juvenile Violence
KW - Juvenile Offender
KW - Juvenile Treatment
KW - Offender Treatment
KW - 1970s
KW - 1980s
KW - Late Adolescence
KW - Intervention Program
KW - Program Evaluation
KW - Program Effectiveness |