Journal of Communitu Ysvchalony, 1978. 6, 328433.

AN EVALUATION OF A JUVENILE COURT VOLUNTEER PROGRAM* ROBERT J. BERGER

Illinois State Universiiy AND

MARTIN GOLD University of Michigan

A longitudinal study of the impact of three separate volunteer pro rams working with juvenile delinquents was undertaken at one juvenile court. T’%e youth were followed for a period of one year with measures of official and unofficial delinquent behavior obtained four times during that year. Other data were also collected. The study results indicated two of the programs (i.e,, volunteer robation officer and r u p counseling) had a negligible effect on reducing protationers’ delinquent

ehavior compared to a control group. Youth who participated in the third group, a volunteer tutor program, actual1 increased their delinquent behavior when com- pared to a control group within t l e first 6 months of their probation. However, one year after probation, the differences were negligible. Recommendations are made which include divesting the juvenile court of client responsibility for providing volunteer services.

The volunteer movement in the last few years has entered the criminal justice system on a large scale. Volunteer workers are found helping in penal institutions, working in programs with released adult offenders, and within the juvenile court system. Until recently, little effort has gone into a systematic evaluation of these volunteer programs.

Several years ago the Institute for Social Research was asked by individuals active in the juvenile court volunteer movement to conduct an evaluation. One juvenile court was selected as a research site because its volunteer programs had been established for several years and were thought to be exemplary. That court’s personnel were agreeable to the implementation of a rigorous evaluative research program.

METHOD The research design consisted of random assignment of individuals to participant or

control groups at the time of their referral for volunteer service, then observing them periodically for a year after. The court staff chose the probationers eligible for volunteer services according to their usual criteria. Probationers assigned to the control group con- tinued to receive all court services; the only difference between the control and ex- perimental groups was that the latter received volunteer services. Probationers’ par- ticipation was contingent on their permission and the permission of their parents or guar- dians. We estimate that about one out of six probationers and/or parents declined to par- ticipate in the study.

Four interviews were held with each child during the course of the year. The first oc- curred immediately after referral to the study and randomization had taken place; this interview because of its length, was held in two sessions, days apart. The second measure- ment occurred randomly at either two or four months after the initial interviews were

*Support for this research was granted by the State of Michigan Office of Criminal Justice Programs, the State Planning Agency responsible for allocating funds from the U. S. Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. Reprint requests should be sent to R. J. Berger, Student Counseling Center, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois 61761.

328

AN EVALUATION 329

completed. The third measurement took place some six months after initial referral. The fourth and final interview was held some six months later, about a year after initial referral. During the time between the fourth and six months, we interviewed the volunteers, the caseworkers, and the parents (generally the mothers) of the probationers.

As in most longitudinal studies, attrition was heavy. After six months, there was complete data on 94 out of the original 196 referrals, and after twelve months, complete data on 78 out of the original 196. A small set of data, pertaining to the effectiveness of the program, is reported here. A full report of the findings is in Berger, Crowley, Gold, and Gray (1975).

Sponsors and administrators of action programs often ask, does it work? In this research, the question was: How effective was the volunteer program in reducing delin- quent behavior?

We used four measures of delinquent behavior in order to examine the effects of the volunteer program on delinquency. Two of these measures, police contacts and max- imum penetration into the juvenile justice system, could be considered measures of of- ficial delinquency, i.e., delinquent behavior known to authorities and officially recorded on police and court records. The other two measures were derived from the probationers’ own reports of their delinquent behavior. These reports were obtained at each interview session with the young person and two scales were constructed from them. The first con- sisted of a simple count of the frequency of their chargeable delinquent behavior. Chargeable behavior was distinguished from other behavior by trained content analysts. The second measure is one that assessed the seriousness of delinquent behavior by weighing some incidents more heavily than others. This weighing of seriousness was based on the work of criminologists Thorsten Sellin and Marvin Wolfgang (1964).

Some may question whether young people are likely to reveal their delinquent behavior in interview sessions with interviewers from a research study. In an attempt to validate this approach, Gold (1970) concluded that between 70 to 75% of American adolescents respond quite candidly to these questions and that about 15 to 20% lie. The remaining 10 to 12% give approximate information but may hold back some.

Concerned whether adolescents on probation would reveal their undetected delin- quent behavior, we conducted a pilot test of the measure. Of 17 probationers interviewed, 15 confessed to chargeable offenses that they had committed since being placed on probation, offenses which had remained undetected. We concluded that the measure was reasonably valid.

DOES THE PROGRAM WORK? There were three separate volunteer programs studied at this particular court: the

volunteer probation officer (VPO program), the tutoring program, and group counsel- ing. The VPO program consisted of adults in the community seeing probationers in a one-to-one relationship similar to the big brother and big sister programs. Tutors worked primarily with the probationers on academic problems. In group counseling, lay leaders conducted discussions with groups of probationers of the same sex or with their parents, that focused on common problems and issues. Probationers could participate in more than one of the programs and some did.

Figures 1 and 2 present the results of the VPO and group counseling programs on delinquent behavior through the six-month interview. The probationers are divided into three categories: (1) participants, (2) nonparticipants, (3) and controls. Nonparticipants are those individuals who were referred for volunteer services but for one reason or

330 ROBERT J . BERGER AND MARTIN GOLD

FIGURE V-1

EFFECT OF PROGRAM ON SELF-REPORTED FREOUENCY OF DELINOUENC Y - VPO SAMPLE 48

Mean Rank on Frequency o f Delinquency Total N=64

Regression: 32 R2=. 02

p=. 62

16

Kruskal-Wallis H:

Experimental (served)

Control -.-.-.-.I Experimental ( n o t served) ......................

another never actually participated in a volunteer program. We realize that this com- plicates the analysis somewhat; such nonparticipation was not a random occurrence and selection - by self or other factors - might be related to subsequent delinquent behavior independent of the effects of the program. Rigorous evaluation requires that the nonparticipants also be included in the “experimental” group. We analyzed the data in this manner and did not find any differences. We elected to treat the nonparticipants in- dependently from the participants in order that we might study the effects of the volunteer process rather than simply evaluate a particular program’s strengths and weaknesses. We wanted to know what volunteers can accomplish with the young people they work with.

The results indicate that both programs had a negligible effect on reducing probationers’ delinquent behavior compared to the control group. In Figure 1, the ver- tical coordinate indicates the average ranks on frequency of delinquent behavior of the three categories of probationers. The horizontal coordinate includes the three points in time at which frequency of delinquent behavior was measured: at intake into the VPO program, two to four months after, and six months after intake. The Kruskal-Wallis H was used at each time period to measure the extent of the differences in delinquency among the three groups. The regression total R2 and its p-level are reported at the left side of the graph; in this case the total variance in the change in delinquent behavior ac- counted for by the program amounted to no more than 2%.

AN EVALUATION 331

FIGURE V-2

EFFECT OF PROGRAM ON SELF-REPORTED FREQUENCY OF DELINQUENCY - GROUP SAMPLE

3 0 Mean Rank on Frequency o f

Delinquency Total N=40

20 Regres s i on :

R2=. 07 p= .29

10

........... ( 2 3 )

I...... .......... .(. ........... 4 (11)

I

I /'". '. '. / * )

'. '. . / *

I'

INTAKE 2-4 MONTHS 6 MONTHS

Kruskal -Wall i s H: p = . 33 p=.95 p= .21

Experimental (served)

Control ._.I._._. Experimental ( n o t served) ......................

Figure 1 and 2 show that the volunteer probation officer and group counseling programs had no effect on the frequency of delinquent behavior. These results were also sustained for the seriousness of delinquent behavior. Figure 3 presents the results of the analysis for the tutoring program: those who were participants and nonparticipants show a relative increase in the frequency of delinquent behavior when compared to the control group. The differences are quite reliable. The pattern of this finding is sustained when we examine the seriousness of delinquent behavior as well. The differences were reliable at only p = .12. We are confident in concluding that being referred to the volunteer tutoring program had the effect of elevating probationers' rates of delinquency, but less confident that the delinquency became more serious.

It is important to note that this effect is not restricted to those who were actually tutored. It seems just as strong among the probationers who were referred for tutoring but never got any. That fact, along with the early appearance of the effect, suggests that the effect was in the referral not in the experiences with the tutors.

Six months later, we interviewed the probationers again. By this time, almost 75% had been dismissed from the court. We found that there were still no differences between those referred for VPO and group-counseling services and those not referred, either in the relative change in the seriousness or the frequency of their delinquent behavior. The important change occurred among those referred to the tutoring program: twelve months after referral, no reliable differences existed between those probationers referred and

332 ROBERT J. BERGER AND MARTIN GOLD

FIGURE V-3

E F F E C T OF PROGRAM ON S E L F REPORTED FREQUENCY OF DELINQUENCY - TUTOR SAMPLE

Mean Rank on Frequency of

De l inquency

T o t a l N=24

Regress ion:

R2=. 50 p<. 001

INTAKE 2-4 MONTHS 6 MONTHS

p= .62 Kru s ka 1 -W a 1 1 i s H : p=.10 p=. 24

Exper imen ta l ( s e r v e d )

- ’-----. Exper imen ta l (not. se rved )

C o n t r o l ....................

those not referred. Thus, by the follow-up interview, the negative impact of the tutoring program had diminished.

These results, along with those in Berger et al., led us to conclude that the volunteer program had negligible if not negative effects on the delinquent behavior of the probationers who were referred to it. Indeed, each of the three kinds of programs - the volunteer probation officers, tutoring, and group counseling with probationers - seem- ed to increase delinquency by one or another criterion through the first six months of the study. We have noted that those referred for tutoring became more frequently delinquent over six months observation compared to their controls, but by six months after dismissal from the court this negative impact had diminished. In results not graphed here, we also found that those who were referred for group counseling ex- perienced a relatively higher rate of contacts with the police during the six months after referral than did their controls; and those who were referred to volunteer probation of- ficers showed this same trend, only not so strongly.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS These findings led us to the following conclusions and recommendations which are

relevant to diversion from the justice system and to alternative community programs for juveniles. These conclusions and recommendations are based primarily on the results dis- cussed above in addition to another series of findings relating to attitudes toward the

AN EVALUATION 333

court. We found that over twelve-months time, as relatively heavily delinquent probationers developed a more positive view of the court, they became less delinquent. If their attitude did not change, their delinquency, relatively speaking, did not change either. It seems that as long as the court is viewed as a coercive agency by recipients of its services, its services will not reduce delinquent behavior. Thus our recommendation:

1. The court’s function of reducing the delinquent behavior of juveniles would be better served if the court divested itself of direct reponsibility for providing volunteer ser- vices.

We doubt from the results of the analysis that the court could effectively structure a volunteer program that would be successful in reducing delinquent behavior due to its in- herent coercive nature. The coercive framework of the system in general works against the rehabilitation of the delinquent particularly when the assignment to a program is viewed by its recipients as somewhat involuntary. This assumption, that coercion is generally an impediment to rehabilitation, led us to other recommendations.

2. The juvenile court should not itself provide direct rehabilitative services; rather, it should apply its resources to the following functions:

A. Judicial. The finding of fact and the determination of legal guilt by means of procedures that safeguard the rights of individuals; and trying to secure justice to victims and safety to the community by enforcing restitution, reparation, or confinement.

B. Referral. Informing and guiding the youth and families that come to its atten- tion to the services available to them in the community.

C . Advocacy. Identifying the needs of youth in the community as individuals and a class and applying the weight of the prestige and power of the juvenile court to the crea- tion of the necessary services among other agencies and institutions in the community.

What we advocate is a court system that provides an atmosphere for fair and equitable dispositions of juvenile cases and one that, while not providing rehabilitative services itself, does play an essential role in creating the conditions for rehabilitation. It does this primarily by using its weight and influence within the community to insure that services will be available to young people and their families and by providing referrals to these agencies when the young and his/her family turn to the court for aid and relief. Implicit in this suggestion is that the referral remains a voluntary action, not one taken under indirect or direct coercion from the court.

We see a function for volunteers in this. Volunteer programs should be incorporated into various community services where they might be useful in filling important roles. This belief will need to be validated with rigorous field experiments.

REFERENCES

BERGER, R. J., CROWLEY, J., GOLD, M., & GRAY, J . Experiment in a Juvenile Court. Ann Arbor,

GOLD, M. Delinquent behavior in an. American city. Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole, 1970. SELLIN, T., & WOLFGANG, M. E. The measurement ofdelinquency. New York: Wiley, 1964.

Michigan: The Institute for Social Research, 1975.